Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

Because Dyson was a very vocal brexiteer and often cited how brexit would make UK businesses more competitive. Then does what all the other leading brexiteers have done and pit his money elsewhere.

Dyson certainly made his British company competitive, by sacking all the British people who manufactured his machines and moving production to Malaysia.

I'm sure Sir James has many pressing concerns but I think it's fair to speculate that the welfare of the average British worker possibly doesn't feature very prominently among them. And why should it? Choosing politics based on what billionaires want is about as sensible as turkeys asking Bernard Matthews whether they should be in favour of Christmas or not.

kabayiri

Arklight wrote: »

I have an answer to the "rising numbers".

Firstly try looking at the facts. Net EU migration from the EU this year was 87,000. Net immigration from outside the EU was 235,000.
...

Typical lefty deflection eh.

It isn't an answer at all.

The argument for me is migration based on quality, not quantity, but you can choose to ignore that.

You still haven't come up with any viable answer as to how we accommodate rising numbers. The response so far, from both Labour and Conservative, has been nothing short of pathetic.

Why not have another go

wunferall

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is the success of the US economy (i.e. more productive) down to more flexible labour laws and less of being a nanny state?

PS. Not suggesting that the model is equitable and without fault.

Do you think that the average American cares?


In many ways it's like this thread, which has to be about the least-populated on the forums - because nobody cares.
Sure there's lots of posts but relatively few posters, probably because honestly it's more than a little bit "Groundhog Day"-ish.
Plus of course as long as things are going okay, why should anybody care?

It was never going to work, some mouthy anti-Brexit type telling anybody they're worse off already because of Brexit when their wages at last are rising more than inflation and there's little prospect of being without a job.
Changing that to "Ah but you will be, just you wait and see." brings only a shake of the head as responses.

It makes me wonder what they'll find to pontificate over once we're out.
The TV show "Grumpy Old Men" is what such remainers bring immediately to mind; amusing but old-fashioned stuck-in-the-mud types unable to accept that the world is a changing place.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

You still haven't come up with any viable answer as to how we accommodate rising numbers. The response so far, from both Labour and Conservative, has been nothing short of pathetic.

While there's little control. A topic that politicians will try and avoid. As no answers.

Thrugelmir

wunferall wrote: »

Do you think that the average American cares?

On a personal level , yes.

ukcarper

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

I think we’re staying in the U.K. - or, having run out of damage to do, are Brexiteers now advocating the break-up of the union?

Edited must have thought I was in Scotland for a moment

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

Dyson certainly made his British company competitive, by sacking all the British people who manufactured his machines and moving production to Malaysia.

I'm sure Sir James has many pressing concerns but I think it's fair to speculate that the welfare of the average British worker possibly doesn't feature very prominently among them. And why should it? Choosing politics based on what billionaires want is about as sensible as turkeys asking Bernard Matthews whether they should be in favour of Christmas or not.

Oh dear, more misplaced hatred Arklight?

Dyson moved production in the early noughties.
Why?
Well where is Dyson's most populous (and profitable) market, powering this British-based company to increase profits by 41% last year.
And what about the increased R&D here in the UK, are you going to ignore that?

Great isn't it, you advocating that we should make the most of dealing with our nearest neighbours the EU or it will cost us yet condemning a manufacturer for making stuff near their biggest market.
:doh:

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

Dyson certainly made his British company competitive, by sacking all the British people who manufactured his machines and moving production to Malaysia.

I'm sure Sir James has many pressing concerns but I think it's fair to speculate that the welfare of the average British worker possibly doesn't feature very prominently among them. And why should it? Choosing politics based on what billionaires want is about as sensible as turkeys asking Bernard Matthews whether they should be in favour of Christmas or not.

Dyson cares so little for the UK that he set up the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology with his own money.

https://www.dysoninstitute.com/

So much for remainers' claims that all scientific research in the UK depends on EU funding. And no tuition fees and students get paid a salry.

wunferall

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On a personal level , yes.

I think that like most people, your average American is concerned only with the dollar in his pocket and whether or not his job is stable.
Why they have a job and why they have money to spend aren't even near the forefront of their thoughts unless they aren't working the hours/earning what they want or they lose their job.
For by far most working Americans (just as here in the UK) life is by and large just fine.
Better than it has been for a long time, in fact.

More recently, the tally of part-timers who’d prefer a full-time position has fallen to a post-recession low of 4.4 million.

From https://www.benefitnews.com/articles/why-so-many-americans-work-multiple-jobs-in-strong-market


Just like here (and elsewhere) although you can never please everybody and despite these things historically being cyclical, for whatever reasons we are seeing a period of demand for labour.

* Not that I'm advocating the reasons for either the USA's or the UK's demand for workers.
Even if both countries have shunned migration and then - purely coincidentally I'm sure - the demand for workers has risen.
:whistle:

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Typical lefty deflection eh.

It isn't an answer at all.

The argument for me is migration based on quality, not quantity, but you can choose to ignore that.

You still haven't come up with any viable answer as to how we accommodate rising numbers. The response so far, from both Labour and Conservative, has been nothing short of pathetic.

Why not have another go

London and the UK aren't world leaders in population density. We can take a huge number of extra people (easily double the population) without any issues if we plan and invest properly.
Take Tokyo; it's got a much higher population and density than London, but it's infrastructure is so far ahead of us it's embarrassing.