Discussion
JagLover said:
sidicks said:
As explained previously, it looks at the net benefits of immigration and ignores the wider impact on the rest of the population.
Also, the graph is 6 years out of date and shows a declining trend with the last 3 years most certainly showing a net cost!
Around about the time a number of newer EU members who had joined had free movement of labour. Cameron claimed I believe that 40% of EU migrants received in work benefits. Also, the graph is 6 years out of date and shows a declining trend with the last 3 years most certainly showing a net cost!
Control of our borders will allow for us to select the immigrants who actually benefit the economy.
it's no laughing matter for those affected, which is just another reason for vote leave. The EU and Globalisation has been great for business and those at the top, as for the rest, not so great. It's not only the UK affected either.
Carl_Manchester said:
jjlynn27 said:
Looks quite good to me.
Before the thread gets turned into a EU Graph fest, I would say that this has already been done in the brexit thread.Regarding net contribution for EU workers in the U.K, it is a fair argument that being a net contributor to tax does not mean that what remains of their earnings are spent directly in the U.K, on goods and services here. A sizeable chunk of the money goes straight out of the U.K into the EU country of origin.
However, this money from EU workers being sent abroad is dwarfed by non-EU workers sending money to Nigeria, Pakistan and India. In India's case the outflow from U.K based workers forms approx 3.4% of their total GDP (!). For Latvia, it is closer to 6%.
The estimates by the world bank state that the recent total yearly average of total money outflows from non-UK workers in the UK in USD is $25 Billion (EU+ROW). That is the worlds 4th largest outflow of its type (source Financial Times).
And that behaviour is not restricted to lower wage earners nor just EU workers, U.K workers do it too (Spanish holiday homes etc.) and also foreign premier league footballers with huge extended families to support.
Regarding average wages, 80% of EU migrants simply would not qualify to enter the UK if the Non-EU migration criteria was applied (£35k), this obviously has a deflationary effect but it would only deflate certain sectors but so does the Non-EU migration.
My point here is that the total number of immigrants has been too high since 2004, it is not just a EU+Brexit thing.
Moving on from that, there is a real and pressing problem with pay not aligning with productivity output increases. I don't see this as a Tory or U.K specific problem infact, until fairly recently, Germany had a much bigger problem with pay than the U.K and it was not linked to immigration.
Many people will not like the solution to the problem which is the adoption of some Marxist-lite and Socialist-lite policies regarding a basic wage and a reformation of the corporate tax and remuneration system which will compel companies to align pay more closely with productivity and efficiency gains rather than hoarding larger profits for shareholders and executives.
Currently this is especially endemic with corporate buy-backs driven by executives and I am happy that there was a consultation placed into the Tory manfiesto regarding this for companies based in the UK.
As I see it, the current sleepwalk into inevitable social and economic contract collapse between the worker and the UK corporate world is the reason for the shift of Tory language in the current manifesto, to redefine what Conservativism actually means and to open the door for cherry picking policy from Labour (and as it turns out, the Greens!) in order to avoid long term social un-rest attributed to the heavy bending (and in some cases the breaking) of the the corporate/societal contract.
That contract is broadly defined, not limited to, Society agreeing to build, maintain a secure infrastructure, in partnership with the Government to allow Corporate businesses to operate and flourish. The people at the corporate top cream a slice, Society feels they are compensated, everyone feels like they are winning and so the world keeps spinning. Once Society feels that contact is not being up-held (as it is now), social un-rest starts and gradually builds until the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I don't really buy into the current malaise and protests run by the opposition, these will fizzle out because they do not affect enough people in enough places in the UK, the problems are going to come when the wage and job security issues start to infest (and not nibble as they are currently doing) middle and upper middle class jobs in Tory heartlands.
The Tories literally have this 5 year stretch of parliament to re-define themselves, the 5 year term after that will be fought against a backdrop of impending mass unemployment for approx 2 million UK workers, potentially more if the death of oil and collapse in car demand for individuals starts as expected in 2021.
Edited by Carl_Manchester on Monday 19th June 23:42
Carl_Manchester said:
Currently this is especially endemic with corporate buy-backs driven by executives and I am happy that there was a consultation placed into the Tory manfiesto regarding this for companies based in the UK.
As I see it, the current sleepwalk into inevitable social and economic contract collapse between the worker and the UK corporate world is the reason for the shift of Tory language in the current manifesto, to redefine what Conservativism actually means and to open the door for cherry picking policy from Labour (and as it turns out, the Greens!) in order to avoid long term social un-rest attributed to the heavy bending (and in some cases the breaking) of the the corporate/societal contract.
That contract is broadly defined, not limited to, Society agreeing to build, maintain a secure infrastructure, in partnership with the Government to allow Corporate businesses to operate and flourish. The people at the corporate top cream a slice, Society feels they are compensated, everyone feels like they are winning and so the world keeps spinning. Once Society feels that contact is not being up-held (as it is now), social un-rest starts and gradually builds until the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I don't really buy into the current malaise and protests run by the opposition, these will fizzle out because they do not affect enough people in enough places in the UK, the problems are going to come when the wage and job security issues start to infest (and not nibble as they are currently doing) middle and upper middle class jobs in Tory heartlands.
The Tories literally have this 5 year stretch of parliament to re-define themselves, the 5 year term after that will be fought against a backdrop of impending mass unemployment for approx 2 million UK workers, potentially more if the death of oil and collapse in car demand for individuals starts as expected in 2021.
What a load of nonsense!As I see it, the current sleepwalk into inevitable social and economic contract collapse between the worker and the UK corporate world is the reason for the shift of Tory language in the current manifesto, to redefine what Conservativism actually means and to open the door for cherry picking policy from Labour (and as it turns out, the Greens!) in order to avoid long term social un-rest attributed to the heavy bending (and in some cases the breaking) of the the corporate/societal contract.
That contract is broadly defined, not limited to, Society agreeing to build, maintain a secure infrastructure, in partnership with the Government to allow Corporate businesses to operate and flourish. The people at the corporate top cream a slice, Society feels they are compensated, everyone feels like they are winning and so the world keeps spinning. Once Society feels that contact is not being up-held (as it is now), social un-rest starts and gradually builds until the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I don't really buy into the current malaise and protests run by the opposition, these will fizzle out because they do not affect enough people in enough places in the UK, the problems are going to come when the wage and job security issues start to infest (and not nibble as they are currently doing) middle and upper middle class jobs in Tory heartlands.
The Tories literally have this 5 year stretch of parliament to re-define themselves, the 5 year term after that will be fought against a backdrop of impending mass unemployment for approx 2 million UK workers, potentially more if the death of oil and collapse in car demand for individuals starts as expected in 2021.
Edited by Carl_Manchester on Monday 19th June 23:42
Share buybacks are principally about where capital is best employed. Should it sit on corporate balance sheets earning low returns for investors and not contributing to the development of the economy or should it be returned to investors who can decide how to employ that capital more efficiently?
It seems that what you actually want is a move to an environment where jobs are protected by the government, just when Macron in France is looking tentatively at moving to curb such protections because of their stifling effect on the French economy.
As for the peak oil scaremongering, that has been going on for years. With fracking and alternative fuels, there is little reason for concern about it (yes, I know you will find hundreds of articles about peak oil on the internet).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Moreover, it's conflating separate issues in a stunning demonstration of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. Freedom of movement does not mean anyone has the right to live anywhere, it never did mean that. In the EU it means three months unconditional living, after that the individual must either be employed & contributing via the tax system locally or have the means to support themselves & not burden the benefits system of the state. If they can do neither, they must leave. Those are the rules.However, that has never been enforced here as it would require tracking entry & exit & probably some kind of I.D. system & the cost has always been judged too high by the government as they know that overall, economic migrants contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits, so it's never been enforced. It's a simple calculation on the cost of doing business but it's nonsense to say we don't have control of our borders, we always had the tools, we simply chose not to use them.
Yet we have a someone who glibly states I can't get a Doctor's appointment, therefore I conclude the whole thing is being stuffed by the EU forcing us to take unlimited numbers of foreigners. Not true.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Public spending as a proportion of GDP is currently 42% which is consistent with both the average since the 1970s and with international comparisons.If that spending is not sufficient to cover essential public services then we need to look at the demands being placed on them and where that is coming from.
In schools for example the demographic bulge caused by immigration means that spending per pupil is forecast to fall while the amount spent is still rising.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Moreover, it's conflating separate issues in a stunning demonstration of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. .
No it isn't.wiki said:
in the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
Cranky just disagrees with you and has some life experience to back up his assertions. You might think citing Dunning-Kruger makes you look clever. I think it's marvellously ironic! anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is not entirely of our own making, as with most things in life it's a single facet of a complex web. So far as immigrants and wages is concerned, If you were on a building site and lost your job to a much lower wage seeker would you be happy? Well of course not, you might say OK I'm no longer competitive, I will lower my hourly rate. But how then do I service my mortgage and feed my kids? Work longer hours and you may be lucky to equal out your pay drop. Get a second job, send wife out to work, eat less well, you get the idea I'm sure. When you say it is our own fault, yes I suppose it is, uncontrolled immigration, globalisation, Corporate greed, all factors including loss of taxes and living above our means.
Zod said:
Carl_Manchester said:
Currently this is especially endemic with corporate buy-backs driven by executives and I am happy that there was a consultation placed into the Tory manfiesto regarding this for companies based in the UK.
As I see it, the current sleepwalk into inevitable social and economic contract collapse between the worker and the UK corporate world is the reason for the shift of Tory language in the current manifesto, to redefine what Conservativism actually means and to open the door for cherry picking policy from Labour (and as it turns out, the Greens!) in order to avoid long term social un-rest attributed to the heavy bending (and in some cases the breaking) of the the corporate/societal contract.
That contract is broadly defined, not limited to, Society agreeing to build, maintain a secure infrastructure, in partnership with the Government to allow Corporate businesses to operate and flourish. The people at the corporate top cream a slice, Society feels they are compensated, everyone feels like they are winning and so the world keeps spinning. Once Society feels that contact is not being up-held (as it is now), social un-rest starts and gradually builds until the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I don't really buy into the current malaise and protests run by the opposition, these will fizzle out because they do not affect enough people in enough places in the UK, the problems are going to come when the wage and job security issues start to infest (and not nibble as they are currently doing) middle and upper middle class jobs in Tory heartlands.
The Tories literally have this 5 year stretch of parliament to re-define themselves, the 5 year term after that will be fought against a backdrop of impending mass unemployment for approx 2 million UK workers, potentially more if the death of oil and collapse in car demand for individuals starts as expected in 2021.
What a load of nonsense!As I see it, the current sleepwalk into inevitable social and economic contract collapse between the worker and the UK corporate world is the reason for the shift of Tory language in the current manifesto, to redefine what Conservativism actually means and to open the door for cherry picking policy from Labour (and as it turns out, the Greens!) in order to avoid long term social un-rest attributed to the heavy bending (and in some cases the breaking) of the the corporate/societal contract.
That contract is broadly defined, not limited to, Society agreeing to build, maintain a secure infrastructure, in partnership with the Government to allow Corporate businesses to operate and flourish. The people at the corporate top cream a slice, Society feels they are compensated, everyone feels like they are winning and so the world keeps spinning. Once Society feels that contact is not being up-held (as it is now), social un-rest starts and gradually builds until the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I don't really buy into the current malaise and protests run by the opposition, these will fizzle out because they do not affect enough people in enough places in the UK, the problems are going to come when the wage and job security issues start to infest (and not nibble as they are currently doing) middle and upper middle class jobs in Tory heartlands.
The Tories literally have this 5 year stretch of parliament to re-define themselves, the 5 year term after that will be fought against a backdrop of impending mass unemployment for approx 2 million UK workers, potentially more if the death of oil and collapse in car demand for individuals starts as expected in 2021.
Edited by Carl_Manchester on Monday 19th June 23:42
Share buybacks are principally about where capital is best employed. Should it sit on corporate balance sheets earning low returns for investors and not contributing to the development of the economy or should it be returned to investors who can decide how to employ that capital more efficiently?
It seems that what you actually want is a move to an environment where jobs are protected by the government, just when Macron in France is looking tentatively at moving to curb such protections because of their stifling effect on the French economy.
As for the peak oil scaremongering, that has been going on for years. With fracking and alternative fuels, there is little reason for concern about it (yes, I know you will find hundreds of articles about peak oil on the internet).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeah but no but yeah.The reason that one might compare the same demographic as the EU immigrants is that economic costs are dis-proportionally high at the beginning and end of life. The good point for immigrants is that we get their skills without paying the costs of educating them. Another good point would be if they leave the UK before they get old: they would not then burden the system by drawing pensions and falling ill. However, that latter step is unknown and unknowable. By lumping in the UK citizens that are burdening the system in old age with those that are economically active, it will show a bigger differential to the far younger immigrant population.
So whilst the data is the data, one cannot simply extrapolate a long-term benefit from immigration - only that there is a short-term one. Long-term it could be negative or positive.
crankedup said:
Depends on interpretation and where that money is going, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which is basically what is said. Is that a Society which is sustainable?
The rich do get richer. The poor do not get poorer. Inequality is increasing, but the base is rising. Is that healthy? I don't think so. The distortion is right at the top, well into the 0.1%.It's pointless getting into debates over erroneous interpretation of figures with people who have an agenda to support open borders and justify immigration, people can do their own research and make up their own minds.
The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's pointless getting into debates over erroneous interpretation of figures with people who have an agenda to support open borders and justify immigration, people can do their own research and make up their own minds.
The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
It is impossible to debate with someone who blames all of the country's ills on immigration.The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's pointless getting into debates over erroneous interpretation of figures with people who have an agenda to support open borders and justify immigration, people can do their own research and make up their own minds.
The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
Not sure where to start as this post is 100% crap.The other thing which people who like to misrepresent the non-existent positive £ of immigration fail to do is add in all the enormous expenditure which, although it cannot always be apportioned to an individual, is caused by the immigration issue.
But consider one deranged murderer who comes here (there have been hundreds who should have been filtered out with effective controls) - the cost of dealing with a murder/rape is enormous. London jails have a massive immigrant population. Additional policing/justice system/prison/crime costs not included in the equation.
The fact that there are so many Muslims in this country makes it an impossibly expensive/complex job to police/watch for terrorism threats. That cost is massive and exacerbated by immigration. Additional security forces workload and resource demands not included in the equation.
Cost of use of the NHS. Whenever you watch GP/Children's hospital programs they are filled with immigrant patients. In the case of children with extremely complex and expensive issues, often the parents are clearly recent arrivals - they have not contributed a life time of taxes, but get very expensive treatment, in rare cases costing £millions. Cost not in the equation.
Border departments having to employ more people and carry out raids for illegal workers etc. Cost not in the equation.
Nigerian (esp. but by no means exclusively) industrialized benefit fraud and the council resources needed to scratch the surface. Cost not included.
Road congestion costs to economy in London/SE/Major cities and pollution and loss of quality of life. Not costed in the equation.
etc. etc.
All this and more arises because of mass immigration and lax border control.
Let's start by asking how many of the doctors and nurses at the hospitals you refer to at the hospitals are also immigrants and/or Muslims?
There a lot of Muslims so statistically there will be a fair number of nutters in there (like you). Probably about the same percentage as the nutters following any other religion.
k you bit in a nutshell, bang on. You're the the other cheek of the arse you love to deplore, Grimnasty. A thoroughly unpleasant outlook on the world.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Immigration was uncontrolled, you may not like it but it is a fact. The floodgates were flung open and our friends from Eastern Europe have been welcomed in. I don't care about who has or has not maintain control. Immigration has been seen by Government and business to be a panacea of a cheap labour pool that would bolster output at low wage rates. You say to me 'stop bandying about falsity' it's not false it is the way I judge and consider, that is what I express. You use data and graphs that suit your agenda, mostly ignoring the real
effect upon the majority of the voting population 52%?
I don't want a protectionist work environment but what I do want is work environment that offers everbody a fair chance on an equal flay level playing field. This concept has been completely undermined thanks to the cheap labour from abroad. This cheap labour has been exploited by businesses t a cost of our indigenous workers having to take on work at paltry pay rates. I thought exploitation was dead and buried years back, I was wrong.
Finally, you continue to suggest it's all our fault, it's not, we did not vote to become a member of the EU and never have we done so.
I certainly agree that minimum wage is far to low against the background of the UK cost of living.
I also agree that labour protection has been desolved to levels which I see as unacceptable.
Must say again the situation has been due to a labour market prepared to accept such conditions that an indigenous worker may not accept.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff