How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Tuna said:
I'm not sure how you codify that into an immigration policy, but should the idea be that in welcoming people into the country, we should also be ensuring that by our own living standards, they are not being exploited?
There are I suggest 2 ways of implementing such a policy. 1. You can leave the Government to organise the policy, on that basis I will bet the policy will not work, will provide the wrong outcomes, and will be expensive to implement.
2. You can let the market control immigration.
The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.
Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).
I genuinely don't know the answer. My feeling is that there should be some form of control - it's generally recognised that unregulated markets are prone to distortion and periodic crisis. However, what form that control should take, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be as simple as classifying skill sets and setting a quota for people with each given skill set. That doesn't deal with issues like refugees, so that pushes me towards a point system of some sort. My impression is that point systems are used, reasonably well understood, fairly simple to implement and don't cause great offence?
The aim would be to have people enter the country without forcing them to take a job at any price, or putting them in the position that they're unable to find work. There's something in there about regional differences in work availability - what happens if all the doctors end up in Leicester when we need them in Newcastle and Manchester?
Generally though, the growth in GDP and low unemployment etc. should be the enabler of more immigration rather than a measure that we haven't got 'too much'. Given the lag in the system, warnings would come far too late.
Tuna said:
The economic data perhaps doesn't show if we're meeting the social goals - in fact it rewards exploitation of immigrant workers and the lowering of living standards. FOML and market led immigration has the problem that we can have short or medium term over-supply (everyone in Greece thinks that they can get a new life in the UK) which can lead to long term problems (immigrant communities having a disproportionate unemployment rate).
I genuinely don't know the answer. My feeling is that there should be some form of control - it's generally recognised that unregulated markets are prone to distortion and periodic crisis. However, what form that control should take, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be as simple as classifying skill sets and setting a quota for people with each given skill set. That doesn't deal with issues like refugees, so that pushes me towards a point system of some sort. My impression is that point systems are used, reasonably well understood, fairly simple to implement and don't cause great offence?
The aim would be to have people enter the country without forcing them to take a job at any price, or putting them in the position that they're unable to find work. There's something in there about regional differences in work availability - what happens if all the doctors end up in Leicester when we need them in Newcastle and Manchester?
Generally though, the growth in GDP and low unemployment etc. should be the enabler of more immigration rather than a measure that we haven't got 'too much'. Given the lag in the system, warnings would come far too late.
I genuinely don't know the answer. My feeling is that there should be some form of control - it's generally recognised that unregulated markets are prone to distortion and periodic crisis. However, what form that control should take, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be as simple as classifying skill sets and setting a quota for people with each given skill set. That doesn't deal with issues like refugees, so that pushes me towards a point system of some sort. My impression is that point systems are used, reasonably well understood, fairly simple to implement and don't cause great offence?
The aim would be to have people enter the country without forcing them to take a job at any price, or putting them in the position that they're unable to find work. There's something in there about regional differences in work availability - what happens if all the doctors end up in Leicester when we need them in Newcastle and Manchester?
Generally though, the growth in GDP and low unemployment etc. should be the enabler of more immigration rather than a measure that we haven't got 'too much'. Given the lag in the system, warnings would come far too late.
sidicks said:
Mrr T said:
There are I suggest 2 ways of implementing such a policy.
1. You can leave the Government to organise the policy, on that basis I will bet the policy will not work, will provide the wrong outcomes, and will be expensive to implement.
2. You can let the market control immigration.
The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.
Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).
And yet, on those same metrics, controlled immigration would work better.1. You can leave the Government to organise the policy, on that basis I will bet the policy will not work, will provide the wrong outcomes, and will be expensive to implement.
2. You can let the market control immigration.
The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.
Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).
Which just goes back to the point a number of pages ago explaining that just because EU immigration has been a net benefit overall (there are of course credible analyses that dispute whether this is more than marginal), it doesn’t mean that all immigration is positive.
I never said all immigration was good I said a majority of EU immigration was a positive.
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.
Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).
If you picked any 15 year period in the post war period I doubt there would be any worse in economic performance than the period since 2000, when open borders began.Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).
Productivity growth has been very poor and, following on from that, so has been real wages growth. The only economic indicators that have done reasonable well is unemployment and inflation.
Mrr T said:
Then again the period from 2000 includes one of the largest financial crisis the world has seen. It’s all relative.
Indeed it doesBut the 15 year period before that includes a severe recession and yet 1985-2000 has far better productivity growth, growth in GDP per head and growth in real wages.
Oooooh correlation does not show causation. Really iffy reasoning.
2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
Mrr T said:
Are you suggesting economics is daft?
..
A lot of economics is daft. Mathematical economics is daft (this was impressed on me forcefully when I was going about with an LSE-trained and ex banker mathematical economist). I am a fan of Adam Smith, and the dude who has just won the Nobel Prize by doing behavioural economics. As he observes, trad economists tell us that people who eat in a bad restaurant where they never intend to eat again don't leave tips. But, er, they do. ..
I was not, however, saying that economics is (are?) daft. I was saying that you cannot measure everything in terms of money.
Mrr T said:
Controlled by who?
Isn’t that why we have a government?Mrr T said:
I never said all immigration was good I said a majority of EU immigration was a positive.
Other people have alluded to that being the case! But again, we don’t know what the outcome would have been has we been able to control our borders, so the economic metrics you have shown, don’t tell the full story.And the fact that we don’t have a control universe to compare what might have been is a problem (and will be a problem in the future when we try and compare the benefit / costs of
Brexit).
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 25th October 13:47
Breadvan72 said:
A lot of economics is daft. Mathematical economics is daft (this was impressed on me forcefully when I was going about with an LSE-trained and ex banker mathematical economist). I am a fan of Adam Smith, and the dude who has just won the Nobel Prize by doing behavioural economics. As he observes, trad economists tell us that people who eat in a bad restaurant where they never intend to eat again don't leave tips. But, er, they do.
I was not, however, saying that economics is (are?) daft. I was saying that you cannot measure everything in terms of money.
You can easily price that, though - the tip is the price for avoiding the social discomfort of not paying what it is expected.I was not, however, saying that economics is (are?) daft. I was saying that you cannot measure everything in terms of money.
ORD said:
Oooooh correlation does not show causation. Really iffy reasoning.
2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
I was responding to a post that claimed the years since 2000 have been great, and they haven't.2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
As to the causes of that in a UK context that is another matter. Poor productivity growth in particular has been partly attributed to the mass migration of low skilled workers.
Tuna said:
The economic data perhaps doesn't show if we're meeting the social goals - in fact it rewards exploitation of immigrant workers and the lowering of living standards. FOML and market led immigration has the problem that we can have short or medium term over-supply (everyone in Greece thinks that they can get a new life in the UK) which can lead to long term problems (immigrant communities having a disproportionate unemployment rate).
I genuinely don't know the answer. My feeling is that there should be some form of control - it's generally recognised that unregulated markets are prone to distortion and periodic crisis. However, what form that control should take, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be as simple as classifying skill sets and setting a quota for people with each given skill set. That doesn't deal with issues like refugees, so that pushes me towards a point system of some sort. My impression is that point systems are used, reasonably well understood, fairly simple to implement and don't cause great offence?
The aim would be to have people enter the country without forcing them to take a job at any price, or putting them in the position that they're unable to find work. There's something in there about regional differences in work availability - what happens if all the doctors end up in Leicester when we need them in Newcastle and Manchester?
Generally though, the growth in GDP and low unemployment etc. should be the enabler of more immigration rather than a measure that we haven't got 'too much'. Given the lag in the system, warnings would come far too late.
As with most economic data its complex and 3 economists can come up with 7 different opinions.I genuinely don't know the answer. My feeling is that there should be some form of control - it's generally recognised that unregulated markets are prone to distortion and periodic crisis. However, what form that control should take, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be as simple as classifying skill sets and setting a quota for people with each given skill set. That doesn't deal with issues like refugees, so that pushes me towards a point system of some sort. My impression is that point systems are used, reasonably well understood, fairly simple to implement and don't cause great offence?
The aim would be to have people enter the country without forcing them to take a job at any price, or putting them in the position that they're unable to find work. There's something in there about regional differences in work availability - what happens if all the doctors end up in Leicester when we need them in Newcastle and Manchester?
Generally though, the growth in GDP and low unemployment etc. should be the enabler of more immigration rather than a measure that we haven't got 'too much'. Given the lag in the system, warnings would come far too late.
If you take something which sounds easy to measure, such as living standards, you quickly find out it’s actually very very difficult to measure.
I accept we cannot have totally uncontrolled immigrations. That is mainly just about numbers but it’s also about the legal position of immigrants from outside the EU.
I accept a perfect system which allocated resources where they are needed would be ideal. However, I have never known a government introduce an ideal solution, in fact it’s rare for a government to even introduce a good system, certainly the current government scheme is a total mess.
The question is which is best FOM which is a market solution with minimal costs, and seems to work or a Government scheme which will not work and will cost a fortune.
To quote Ronny, what the worst thing a person can hear from anyone? I am from the government and I am here to help you.
Mrr T said:
s with most economic data its complex and 3 economists can come up with 7 different opinions.
...
The question is which is best FOM which is a market solution with minimal costs, and seems to work or a Government scheme which will not work and will cost a fortune.
You're using a weak excuse to basically ignore the case I made, and repeat your own (unjustified and unsubstantiated) view that the Government "can't do it"....
The question is which is best FOM which is a market solution with minimal costs, and seems to work or a Government scheme which will not work and will cost a fortune.
Firstly, if your view is that governments cannot arrange such things and inevitably make the situation worse, what is your justification for wanting to be ruled by the EU?
Secondly, are you suggesting that Austrialia's point based system isn't generally accepted to be a working solution?
Mrr T said:
s with most economic data its complex and 3 economists can come up with 7 different opinions.
If you take something which sounds easy to measure, such as living standards, you quickly find out it’s actually very very difficult to measure.
I accept we cannot have totally uncontrolled immigrations. That is mainly just about numbers but it’s also about the legal position of immigrants from outside the EU.
I accept a perfect system which allocated resources where they are needed would be ideal. However, I have never known a government introduce an ideal solution, in fact it’s rare for a government to even introduce a good system, certainly the current government scheme is a total mess.
The question is which is best FOM which is a market solution with minimal costs, and seems to work or a Government scheme which will not work and will cost a fortune.
To quote Ronny, what the worst thing a person can hear from anyone? I am from the government and I am here to help you.
False analysis.If you take something which sounds easy to measure, such as living standards, you quickly find out it’s actually very very difficult to measure.
I accept we cannot have totally uncontrolled immigrations. That is mainly just about numbers but it’s also about the legal position of immigrants from outside the EU.
I accept a perfect system which allocated resources where they are needed would be ideal. However, I have never known a government introduce an ideal solution, in fact it’s rare for a government to even introduce a good system, certainly the current government scheme is a total mess.
The question is which is best FOM which is a market solution with minimal costs, and seems to work or a Government scheme which will not work and will cost a fortune.
To quote Ronny, what the worst thing a person can hear from anyone? I am from the government and I am here to help you.
Tuna said:
You're using a weak excuse to basically ignore the case I made, and repeat your own (unjustified and unsubstantiated) view that the Government "can't do it".
Firstly, if your view is that governments cannot arrange such things and inevitably make the situation worse, what is your justification for wanting to be ruled by the EU?
Secondly, are you suggesting that Austrialia's point based system isn't generally accepted to be a working solution?
I would be very slow to look to Australia for pointers as to how to deal with immigration. Firstly, if your view is that governments cannot arrange such things and inevitably make the situation worse, what is your justification for wanting to be ruled by the EU?
Secondly, are you suggesting that Austrialia's point based system isn't generally accepted to be a working solution?
ORD said:
Easy. If 'access to the Single Market' was a thing (which it isn't), it would obviously be a better choice than membership. All the benefits; none of the costs.
'Access' was never a thing, however, unless you are prepared to pay billions for it.
Can you explain to me how all the small trade arrangements with non-member states we are told we will lose when leaving the EU, do not equate to access to the Single Market without payments?'Access' was never a thing, however, unless you are prepared to pay billions for it.
You also have access to the Single Market for countries with more widespread trade agreements, such as the recent Canada-UE deal. That doesn't include any payment into the EU budget.
WTO membership means there is access to the single market for any WTO member, if the EU left the WTO then they could close that off, but currently they are members so there is access into the EU market for non-EU members without payments.
Would it not be more honest to say there is a thing called "Access" without being prepared to pay billions for it?
JagLover said:
ORD said:
Oooooh correlation does not show causation. Really iffy reasoning.
2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
I was responding to a post that claimed the years since 2000 have been great, and they haven't.2000- has seen relatively little growth because (1) the financial world basically collapsed halfway through it and (2) the West has largely had its day and wealth is inevitably to be shared out more evenly across countries.
As to the causes of that in a UK context that is another matter. Poor productivity growth in particular has been partly attributed to the mass migration of low skilled workers.
Breadvan72 said:
Despite the weather, wealthy characters love the UK. They can go somewhere sunny when they like, but London is a draw for financially independent types. Monaco is Alcatraz for Billionaires (Jack Nicholson)*. Some of the rich London lovers could be asked to pay a bit more for the benefits of London life, which takes us into the property tax debate currently going on in the Hudson thread.
* My wife spent a year living in Monaco with a crook she was seeing at the time. She agrees with Jack Nicholson.
I like that re Monaco, its spot on. I feel sorry for the poor sods who have to take the train every day from France to work in Monaco, then take the train home at night. If you have ever taken that train, its quite a remarkable experience, often gorgeous looking people with the most miserable faces I have ever experienced on the planet, it must be utterly depressing to live life that way.* My wife spent a year living in Monaco with a crook she was seeing at the time. She agrees with Jack Nicholson.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 25th October 12:31
jsf said:
I like that re Monaco, its spot on. I feel sorry for the poor sods who have to take the train every day from France to work in Monaco, then take the train home at night. If you have ever taken that train, its quite a remarkable experience, often gorgeous looking people with the most miserable faces I have ever experienced on the planet, it must be utterly depressing to live life that way.
In my callow youth, I was into paragliding & once landed on Monaco beach. They've since banned people from doing so, the point of all this blah being that flying over the place was both over & done with quickly, coupled with the afternoon wandering around the place fed into the view that living there would be a miserable existence no matter how much Chinese tea one might have squirrelled away.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff