Will Brexit happen?

elstimpo

westernpromise wrote: »

I love how bewildered you sound.

Would you have opposed abolishing slavery because was costly?

I really shouldn't engage with such stupidity, but can you explain how your question is specifically relevant to the UK's membership of the EU?

Also, please don't be so ignorant -> https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/eurolabour/pages/359/attachments/original/1444657976/What-has-Europe-ever-done-for-us.pdf?1444657976

Green_Bear

westernpromise wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment. I was presented with this years ago and still find it useful.


Second, we make and have made such decisions at many times. We abolished slavery at huge cost out of principle. Arguments against doing so because money failed. We likewise continue to favour environmentally friendly technologies over others even if costlier.

Now somebody remind me again what the best arguments were for staying in the EU. Try not to mention money.

Would you classify conscription into the armed forces as slavery?
If so, slavery continued for people of all races well into the 1970s in the USA.

lisyloo

Green_Bear wrote: »

Most don't realise that immigrants are also customers, hence they increase the demand for labour, as well as increasing the supply of labour.

Many of them aren’t (I mean the ones in low paid jobs).
They are not consumers of nail bars, hair salons, restaurants, car washes and hotels (the kind of places they work).
Many live quite frugal lives either to save up and leave or to send money home.
Some in London will only frequent their own supermarkets e.g. we have polish shops.

The kind of people that wash my car for a fiver or paint my nails for a tenner are not spending lots of disposable income.

Of course we have some GPS, dentists, mark Carney as it must be recognised that immigrants work at all levels, but the fruit pickers, cockle pickers, fishermen, car washers, hospital porters are not big spenders.

lisyloo

Green_Bear wrote: »

Would you classify conscription into the armed forces as slavery?
If so, slavery continued for people of all races well into the 1970s in the USA.

No it’s not slavery.
You can opt out of conscription, you can’t opt out of slavery.

Green_Bear

lisyloo wrote: »

Many of them aren’t (I mean the ones in low paid jobs).
They are not consumers of nail bars, hair salons, restaurants, car washes and hotels (the kind of places they work).
Many live quite frugal lives either to save up and leave or to send money home.
Some in London will only frequent their own supermarkets e.g. we have polish shops.

The kind of people that wash my car for a fiver or paint my nails for a tenner are not spending lots of disposable income.

Of course we have some GPS, dentists, mark Carney as it must be recognised that immigrants work at all levels, but the fruit pickers, cockle pickers, fishermen, car washers, hospital porters are not big spenders.

Who maintains the buildings the immigrants live and work in?
Who do those Polish shops pay rent to?
Where do the Polish shops buy their supplies from?
Who delivers their babies?
Where do they buy their clothes from?
Who do they pay their electricity to?
Who teaches their kids?

Maybe per person they spend less than the average Brit. But that's because the native British average would include people like Boris Johnson and the Queen.

The UK has a huge problem with empty commercial premises. The businesses you describe all increase demand for commercial property.

If you seized £1 million pounds from Jacob Rees Mogg tomorrow and handed it out to Polish immigrants, I can guarantee that more of that money would be spent in the UK economy.

Green_Bear

lisyloo wrote: »

No it’s not slavery.
You can opt out of conscription, you can’t opt out of slavery.

Can you?
Pity no one told all those American conscripts, before they got killed in Vietnam.

westernpromise

Green_Bear wrote: »

Slavery was a massive disadvantage to the white working class in the USA at the time, as it reduced the price of labour.
Once the plantation owners had to start paying the cotton pickers, it led to an increased price of all labour - including the jobs done by the white working class.
The fear of the white workers - that all the freed slaves would start competing for the 'white jobs' - ignored the fact that the cotton still needed to be picked. Hence the wage offered for picking cotton would rise as the former slaves left the plantation.

So imagine the disruption. Slave owners had to be compensated for their loss - a slave's value was roughly the labour cost they saved you less keep, so a six digit sum per head. At the same time the amount of labour in the economy hadn't changed more was there anybody who'd gained who could be sent the bill. I've seen estimates that the cost of abolishing slavery was greater than that of Labour's global crash.

Yet we still did it. Arguments that it would cost money didn't prevail.

It wasn't all about the money.

westernpromise

elstimpo wrote: »

I really shouldn't engage with such stupidity, but can you explain how your question is specifically relevant to the UK's membership of the EU?

You most certainly should, because if you don't understand the relevance, you don't understand why you lost the referendum....which makes the stupidity yours. You're still trotting out the arguments that failed.

Here's a way into the question for you.

Many people don't want to take the aliens' deal. What arguments would you use to change their minds? How would you show that the sacrifice was worth the money? Would it be wise to mention the money at all?

Green_Bear

westernpromise wrote: »

So imagine the disruption. Slave owners had to be compensated for their loss - a slave's value was roughly the labour cost they saved you less keep, so a six digit sum per head. At the same time the amount of labour in the economy hadn't changed more was there anybody who'd gained who could be sent the bill. I've seen estimates that the cost of abolishing slavery was greater than that of Labour's global crash.

Yet we still did it. Arguments that it would cost money didn't prevail.

It wasn't all about the money.

Slave owners didn't have to be compensated. They may have been, but that was a political choice.

A six figure amount 200 years ago is a meaningless statement, as we have a fiat currency system today.

The winners were the freed slaves and the white working class in that region. And later on, those who designed and built farm machinery.

The losers were the purchasers of cotton, who would have seen an increase in prices passed on.
The losers were either the plantation owners or the US govt / taxpayers (depending on how much compensation was paid).

westernpromise

Green_Bear wrote: »

Can you?
Pity no one told all those American conscripts, before they got killed in Vietnam.

Which has nothing to do with the point that we often make economically costly decisions for reasons of principle.

Some are macro decisions like abolishing slavery against our own economic interests (there may be arguments it was beneficial to do so, but those weren't the ones that were used or that prevailed). Others are micro decisions, like always checking your change and if a shop assistant over-changes you giving them the money back.

In neither case is there any amount of money so large that you'd instead keep it. The decision is not about how much money.

For Remainers it appears EU membership is. It's all they talk about. Think of all the money. So what do they think we give up for the money, and is it enough money? How do you know?

Is 1,000% more wealth for everyone not a fair price for 75,000,000,000 lives?