Jump to content
Placebo

European Politics Thread.

Recommended Posts

All those big rich countries were overpopulated to start with.

How many does it take to tip a balance? Just one.

Immigration brings a whole host of problems from integration to infrastructure. The roads are already jammed, the housing already in short supply, the water reservoirs already undersupporting their maximum populations. The electricity generators maxxed.

None of which have anything to do with immigration. In fact, these are mostly only an issue in the South East and the London commuter belt.

Where do you think all the immigrants go, it's not just internal migration. It's migration full stop.

Everyone heads for the money. There isn't a big flock of migrants to Glasgow. The government even trys to settle them there but they head due south as fast as they can.

With regards to unemployment, I'll give you a little example.

My mate Derek.

Delboy is a little bit simple. Harmless guy, drinks down my pub, friendly, put only has half a loaf.

He's always done kitchen work as long as I've known him. But now he has no job. Previously his kind of work had little competition and he never had any trouble.

Now he has no wife, lives in one of those skaggy halfway houses and shoplifts for food.

I don't read any tabloids. But if they are drawing attention to his plight and the plight of others like him, I suppose I should really start.

I like all the polish guys who work in the kitchen at my local bar, and I like all the Hungarian girls who work the line at my friends cake factory, but I am less than amused about Derek. I prefer to think of this society protecting it's weak.

Before he had a life. No he has incapacity pay and no self respect. Woot!

Electricity demand is not the only infrastructure placed under additional load. Health care in this country is provided free, as is education. The courts are also free, museums etc etc etc. Every single ammenity we have costs money to operate. From swimming pools to public toilets, the more people you add, the more they get used. The more you need.

I have no problem with rich immigrants who can pay. They are to be encouraged.

At the current rate of population growth a city the size of Birmingham is going to need to be built every five years.

I agree with you that current infrastructure levels have been under invested in. This is precisely the reason that additional growth in it's usuage should be curbed.

I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.

Two world wars have kept Londons population in check?

Are you suggesting we have another one in preference to enforcing border control?

I prefer to restrict immigration and promote birth control myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.

ehm... I find it fundamentally and morally wrong to have that sort of thinking. That is discrimination. We have seen this in the past many times already. And bad things have happened because of that.

And I'll be damned if I spit on the achievements that my ancestors died for...

And concerning your buddy Derek. I'm sorry to have to say it this harsh, but. Why didn't he do something more with his life? If people choose to do such low skill work then they must not wonder when some foreigner comes and takes their job away. The foreigner can cook or wash the dishes just as good as a native. Often he is even more motivated and does the job better. But a native guy has many advantages over the foreigner. For example he speaks the language presumably much better. You gotta use those skills. Your skills are your capital and the more skills you have the better are your chances to find a job that can't be replaced by some illegal immigrant that knows exactly 3 English words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.

ehm... I find it fundamentally and morally wrong to have that sort of thinking. That is discrimination. We have seen this in the past many times already. And bad things have happened because of that.

And I'll be damned if I spit on the achievements that my ancestors died for...

And concerning your buddy Derek. I'm sorry to have to say it this harsh, but. Why didn't he do something more with his life? If people choose to do such low skill work then they must not wonder when some foreigner comes and takes their job away. The foreigner can cook or wash the dishes just as good as a native. Often he is even more motivated and does the job better. But a native guy has many advantages over the foreigner. For example he speaks the language presumably much better. You gotta use those skills. Your skills are your capital and the more skills you have the better are your chances to find a job that can't be replaced by some illegal immigrant that knows exactly 3 English words.

Derek is a halfwit.

Not everyone is capable of doing or achieving more.

Another friend of mine also does kitchen work. He has a doctorate, he is capable of something "greater" but he likes the lifestyle. What he does makes him happy.

Why would you discriminate against him?  

Don't you believe in freedom of choice?

You don't value his chosen life path so it's O.K. if we make life a little tougher for him.

Would you feel the same way if your own prefered job opportunities were reduced or is it just people you don't empathise with?

I will always discriminate in favour of my friends over someone I don't know.

Loyalty is something I prize very highly.

My ancestors didn't fight to have their freedoms sold out either.

Mine fought to keep their way of life and opportunities open for their loved ones.

And if you think every person should have a right to use the property earned and worked for by others; and not to allow this is morally wrong, would you mind lending me the keys to your car?

There is nothing wrong with discrimination. I buy drinks for my friends not every stranger in the bar.

I discriminate. So do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.

ehm... I find it fundamentally and morally wrong to have that sort of thinking. That is discrimination. We have seen this in the past many times already. And bad things have happened because of that.

And I'll be damned if I spit on the achievements that my ancestors died for...

And concerning your buddy Derek. I'm sorry to have to say it this harsh, but. Why didn't he do something more with his life? If people choose to do such low skill work then they must not wonder when some foreigner comes and takes their job away. The foreigner can cook or wash the dishes just as good as a native. Often he is even more motivated and does the job better. But a native guy has many advantages over the foreigner. For example he speaks the language presumably much better. You gotta use those skills. Your skills are your capital and the more skills you have the better are your chances to find a job that can't be replaced by some illegal immigrant that knows exactly 3 English words.

Derek is a halfwit.

Not everyone is capable of doing or achieving more.

Another friend of mine also does kitchen work. He has a doctorate, but he likes the lifestyle.

And if you think every person should have a right to use the property earned and worked for by others, would you mind lending me the keys to your car?

There is nothing wrong with discrimination. I buy drinks for my friends not every stranger in the bar. I discriminate. So do you.

If I had a car I'd lease it to you for a suitable price. No problem. I make deals with anyone that pays. No money no service though. Just like with jobs. So don't make wrong comparisons. You are not giving anything away for free. Immigrants that do work have to give their services to gain money and they are one reason that keeps your economy going.

Besides... talking of England and Europe in general. A lot of Europe's wealth was worked for by others. The privileged status of Europe is only possible because it exploited the rest of the world for centuries. So don't be so greedy.

And don't make assumptions how I am. I have a drink and pay drinks for anyone that wants to spend a good time with me. Obviously I don't spend time with people that don't want to spend time with me but that is not discrimination. Discrimination is when I exclude people from spending time with me based on their properties.

EDIT: and concerning Derek if he had a "medical" problem (dunno the English term) then I'm sure there are organisations that can help him as much that he doesn't have to do shoplifting to survive. If he doesn't have such a problem then it is likely that he would be able to earn his living legally although it might take more effort than stealing for food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't.

From the moment they set foot in the country they are free to use the roads the health care the courts, the public buildings, send their kids to school, visit the museums and parks, drink the water, be protected by the army and police, travel by state subsidised transport.

And since the most of them work in low paid work, those that contribute don't pull their weight. 90% of the country don't pay their way, only the rich do.

They are getting a free ride they haven't earnt. Most of us are.

If our country, like you, was willing to charge a reasonable price, that would be acceptable to me. As I said wealthy immigrants are very welcome. They contribute their worth and pay a fair rate for the facilities open to them.

I'm willing to trade like you.

I also think it is morally wrong to give away for free something you did not pay for yourself.

I think it is wrong to expect someone else to pay for your morality. If you want immigrants to share the wealth, make sure it's only your own wealth you are offering please.

The state does help Derek. He gets incapacity pay. 40 Quid a week and is housed in halfway house with prison leavers and heroin addicts.

He used to have a job that paid 250 Quid a week, keep his wife and rent his own place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they don't.

From the moment they set foot in the country they are fre to use the roads the health care the courts, the public buildings, send their kids to school, visit the museums and parks, drink the water.

And since the most of them work in low paid work, those that contribute don't pull their weight. 90% of the country don't pay their way, only the rich do.

They are getting a free ride they haven't earnt. Most of us are.

If our country, like you, was willing to charge a reasonable price, that would be acceptable to me. As I said wealthy immigrants are very welcome. They contribute their worth and pay a fair rate for the facilities open to them.

The state does help Derek. He gets incapacity pay. £40 a week.

He used to have a job that paid £250.

Your arguments are faulty. You assume the low skill jobs along with the people not earning enough to live without social support would not exist if there were no immigrants. But that is fundamentally wrong. Those jobs need to be done. Without them the economy would collapse. And if there were no immigrants to do it then English people would do it and they would need social support aswell because the job is not suddenly going to generate money out of thin air that can be given to those people.

[EDIT]: Forgot to add an important aspect here: don't forget that immigrants often work cheaper and harder for the same job meaning that you can't replace the jobs 1:1 meaning the number of jobs would decrese and thus the number of work done would decrease overproportionally and thus the added value decreases meaning your economical growth decreases meaning even less jobs will be offered. [/END EDIT]

Also there would not be enough people that are willing to do such labour without immigrants. Because you won't get a native with a decent education to wash dishes for a living. If he doesn't find a job - thanks to the EU migration and labour laws - he will go to some other place that offers him a decent job in his area of work and decent wages.

anyway it goes to far to explain all the mechanics. but there are sevral studies/articles on this issue. You might find those interesting:

The Impact of Immigration on the Structure of Male Wages: Theory and Evidence from Britain

Quote[/b] ]Our conclusions suggest that the main impact of increased

immigration in the UK is on the outcomes for immigrants who are already here.

How immigrants sustain Britain's economic growth

Quote[/b] ]"It seems likely that immigration has contributed 0.5 per cent to 1per cent to UK economic growth in each of the years 2005 and 2006. In terms of Brown's 2005 economic growth forecast, this was definitely needed in order for it to be achieved, and for the 2006 growth forecast it played a significant (perhaps crucial) part in its achievement."

and this Presentation: Pensions and Migration

Quote[/b] ]Conclusions

• The (long-term) impact of international migration on

national pension systems is largely positive.

• Immigration may thus alleviate the problems of ageing

– but, with plausible aggregate n°s, it will never remove them.

[...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. The economy would not collapse.

It wasn't collapsed before the immigration went mental.

The dishes all got washed 5 years ago. 10 years ago too.

Immigrants make up just under 8% of the population and contribute up to 0.04% of GDP.

Big whoop.

(Especially when considering most of the nations income is GLA and foreign investment isn't even calculated under GDP.

Similarly GDP does not take into account that which immigrants send home to their families abroad, removing the money from the local economy entirely).

Not only this, but cheap labour is not the way to a succesful economy.

You might notice that Germany and Japan have very expensive labour forces and massive economies.

The price of labour has forced them to innovate and mechanise.

Invent dishwashers!

Infrastructure is more important than labour costs.

Cheap labour economies are not the most successful. If we need cheap labour to help drive our economy, we are perfectly able to outsource. That way it actually is cheap. Not pretend cheap.

Here in the U.K. most of the money is made in the city by bankers, not in fields picking subsidised crops or in the service industries.

90% of the population is already subsidised. Adding 1/2 million people below the profit line every year, (while 1/4 of a million of the higher earners depart), doesn't improve anything. It makes it worse.

If I am going to socially support someone, I'd prefer to spend that money supporting people I know and care about.

If it's Derek or some bloke I've never met, Derek gets my money everytime.

In fact I would rather support them a little better and leave the total strangers to fend for themselves completely. There can never be enough to feed the entire world. Best to play a game you can win.

What nonsense that immigrants solve the pensions crisis. They are all going to get old and require any of the pensions they contribute to themselves. And once again, being in low paid jobs, their contributions won't cover what they will receive; let alone what the current grey population receives.

All it contributes to is the current pension payments. It's an immediate respite for the short term only, not a solution or a cure. Pure plop.

The pensions crisis remains unsolved.

As for highly skilled workers migrating, they will never have a problem, they are welcome everywhere. They always have been.

EU migration laws hasn't affected that one bit.

Not that we particularly want to lose all our skilled workforce. It costs a fortune to train them.

We would like them to stick around and do their bit here.

Quote[/b] ]"It seems likely that immigration has contributed 0.5 per cent to 1per cent to UK economic growth in each of the years 2005 and 2006. In terms of Brown's 2005 economic growth forecast, this was definitely needed in order for it to be achieved, and for the 2006 growth forecast it played a significant (perhaps crucial) part in its achievement."

For the record the U.K. growth rates in 2005 and 2006 were the slowest in 15 years.

I wouldn't want to directly correlate this with the largest wave of immigration ever in the history of the nation occouring during those years. But you can if you like.

Immigration isn't all bad, it keeps inflation down. And as you rightly say a lot of them will be go getters. It brings in an influx of new blood.

Strengthens the culture through diversity, reduces the chance of war and promotes new trade routes.

We've always been an immigration culture.

The problem here is not immigration per se, it is the scale of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehm... Baff, have you checked the status of the German and Japanese economies lately? They may be large, but they certainly aren't healthy. In Germany, this is partially caused by the disproportionate power of the unions, which help keep the wages artificially high. Why is there such high unemployment amongst the young? Because the unions are damned if they're going to allow anything to be done to the cushy job protection of the already employed. Everybody's talking about 'solidarity', but as soon as one gets a job he turns his back on the unemployed.

Quote[/b] ]

And if you think every person should have a right to use the property earned and worked for by others; and not to allow this is morally wrong, would you mind lending me the keys to your car?

First of all, you mean public property financed with public money. Let me ask you this: do think your mate Derek ever contributed a proportional share towards these public facilities, making 250 quid a week? I guess not. Perhaps he should pay more for them as well? Or should he receive preferential treatment, because "he's your mate and loyalty is all that counts"? What about young people and students, who haven't paid taxes yet? Perhaps they should pay more too?

Furthermore, how do you imagine such a system of differentation being instituted? Can you imagine the overhead costs? The added bureaucracy, the inefficiency? I hope you realise something like this is a complete fantasy.

Now, I don't know whether you're aware of this, but banking IS part of the services sector. The emphasis shift from industry to services is a common phenomenon in rich countries. People need to adapt to this change, rather than shutting their eyes real tight and hoping things wont change if they just don't look. This shift doesn't mean that manual labour will disappear completely, but it does mean that the sector is becoming less lucrative. Hiring cheaper labour is one of the ways to limit the costs and keep the companies running. Innovation isn't some magical process which continues ad infinitum; it has its limits. There are still tasks which need to be performed by hand. If companies want to remain competitive, they must save money on - amongst other things - on labour. Or would you rather force them to hire local labour, out of "loyalty"?

With regard to the pensions crisis: I suggest you read some literature on the matter instead of spouting unfounded opinions. A fresh influx of labour DOES alleviate the pensions problem. You are correct in saying that outside workers 'only' contribute to the pensions of the currently retired, but that's exactly how the

pensions system works. The currently employed pay for the pensioners, it's called intergenerational solidarity. Note that I'm not saying this will solve the pensions problem - this requires a more structural approach, e.g. more investments in securities rather than gov't bonds. But that's a different discussion entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense.

oh noes the "I don't read properly what he wrote and answer anyway" has started again... this is going to be tiresome.

ok where to start:

Quote[/b] ]The economy would not collapse.

I said if the work wouldn't get done the economy would collapse as in putting in perspective that low skill work is vital too. I didn't say without immigrants the economy would collapse. I merely said the Immigrants are doing work that is vital for the economy. Of course British people can do that work too instead but there's plenty of arguments why they can't substitute the work for the same price. Thus that solution is inferior and leads to decreased economic growth. Careful reading could have told you this.

Quote[/b] ]Immigrants make up just under 2% of the population and contribute 0.04% of GDP.

Big whoop.Big whoop.

If you directly contradict my source that I mentioned then please have the decency to present your source...

Quote[/b] ]You might notice that Germany and Japan have very expensive labour forces and massive economies.

Funny that you mention Germany. Almost 9 % of the German population are foreigners. Compared to that England has only about 4% (2000 data: http://doku.iab.de/ibv/2003/ibv0903.pdf)

Their "massive" economy has to do with their "massive" population (for Europe) that is only not shrinking thanks to immigration. Their GDP per capita is nearly the same as that of the UK and Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._capita). So all three economies are almost equal relative to the population based on GDP. So all those foreigners don't seem to harm them as they are about as Productive as the UK with a more than twice as big percentage of foreign population.

Quote[/b] ]Infrastructure is more important than labour costs.

eh... okay, care to elaborate. That statement without any context is pretty useless.

Quote[/b] ]Cheap labour economies are not the most successful.

Who was talking about cheap labour economies... I was talking about the UK economy which is not a cheap labour economy.

Quote[/b] ]Here in the U.K. most of the money is made in the city by bankers, not in fields picking subsidised crops or in the service industries.

90% of the population is already subsidised. Adding 1/2 million people below the profit line every year doesn't improve anything. It makes it worse.

source for your numbers please. I'd like to check them myself before commenting. Especially what those subsidies would be that 90% of the population need. I mean I get subsidies too because I use public transportation and not a private car but boohoo I'm not stealing money from the nation that way, in fact I'm saving it a lot money that way.

Quote[/b] ]There can never be enough to feed the entire world. Best to play a game you can win.

You make it sound like the UK was on the verge of collapsing because of resource shortage which is to use your words "nonsense". Besides it has been proven numerous times there is enough to feed the entire world. Only the distribution sucks. While the "rich" countries consume magnitudes more than they need the poorest get almost nothing.

Quote[/b] ]All it contributes to is the current pension payments. It's an immediate respite for the short term only, not a solution or a cure. Pure plop.

The pensions crisis remains unsolved.

now if you actually read the paper you could see that they found that it does help in the long term while it doesn't have any significant effect in the short term. But since it is there for you to read I won't bother to explain it.

Quote[/b] ]Not that we particularly want to lose all our skilled workforce. It costs a fortune to train them.

We would like them to stick around and do their bit here.

You do realise that more skilled people would leave if there were only low skill jobs left for them in the UK? As I said before. immigrants in low skill jobs mostly do jobs that most British people simply don't want to do. At least not as a permanent source of income. So if you chase out the immigrants you'd maybe create jobs for a few Dereks but the majority of unemployed British people would not want to do those jobs. They will fight hard for the higher skill jobs instead and the "losers" would probably seek their luck in other European countries instead of going to wash dishes all their life. We have this "problem" or "blessing" in Switzerland. We get a lot of German immigrants. For our Economy they are really cheap workers but they are highly skilled. So what happens... you go to a hospital and you have only Germans there. Why? They can't find a job in Germany that suits their educations. They get offered to work in low skill jobs. They say "FU" and go to Austria or Switzerland where they are thankfully employed. They cost like 1/4 less than a Swiss person in the same position, they are often better educated and they speak the language. Perfect. For us. We get population growth of well educated people that are culturally almost assimilated. Shame for Germany. They get some kind of "medium-Brain drain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you think all the immigrants go, it's not just internal migration. It's migration full stop.

Everyone heads for the money. There isn't a big flock of migrants to Glasgow. The government even trys to settle them there but they head due south as fast as they can.

I take it from that statement that you live in the S.E/commuter belt and your map has 'there be beasties here' north of Peterborough.

Those immigrants are not 'heading for the money', they are going where the jobs are - jobs (and money for that matter) are available across the whole country. Most of those immigrants are here to do the low skilled, low paid work that the native population has no interest in. Who, with more than three working brain cells, would look for a minimum wage job in London where they'd have to pay around 700 pounds pcm for a grotty run-down bedsit when they could get a similar minimum wage job in Castleford and have a shiny new 3 bedroomed semi with garden front and back for 300 pounds pcm? I would hazard a guess that there is a lot more call for vegetable pickers in Staffordshire than in E15. The Government have absolutely no say on where they go, freedom of movement is enshrined in EU law.

Quote[/b] ]With regards to unemployment, I'll give you a little example.

My mate Derek.

Delboy is a little bit simple. Harmless guy, drinks down my pub, friendly, put only has half a loaf.

He's always done kitchen work as long as I've known him. But now he has no job. Previously his kind of work had little competition and he never had any trouble.

Now he has no wife, lives in one of those skaggy halfway houses and shoplifts for food.

If Derek is stealing for food why is he in the pub?

Regardless, your argument makes no sense. Derek is not going to be laid off from his job because Libor has just arrived from Ostrava and can do the same job for the same pay but with a limited grasp of English. It would be pointless, self-defeating and illegal. And if Derek can't get a mimimum wage job he's just applied for over Libor I suggest he finds a tall building, throwing off, for the use of - sharpish.

I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an advanced, first world nation with a well developed welfare state. Derek would not be living in a halfway house and stealing for food. He would have his rent or interest on his mortgage paid for by the council, would be in receipt of enough unemployment benefit to put food on his plate and the heating on, offered adult education courses and assistance in finding alternative employment. Libor, however, would have no access to any of that.

Quote[/b] ]I don't read any tabloids. But if they are drawing attention to his plight and the plight of others like him, I suppose I should really start.

If, by that, you mean making up bizarre stories with no grounding in reality, then yes, they've been doing it for years.

The Daily Wail is still a tabloid btw.

Quote[/b] ]I like all the polish guys who work in the kitchen at my local bar, and I like all the Hungarian girls who work the line at my friends cake factory, but I am less than amused about Derek. I prefer to think of this society protecting it's weak.

There is a big difference in protecting the weak and babysitting. The state isn't there to tuck him in at night and tell him a bedtime story.

Quote[/b] ]Before he had a life. No he has incapacity pay and no self respect. Woot!

If he is on incapacity benefit then he is incapable of work, the clue is in the name. In such case the existence or otherwise of immigrants has no bearing on his employment status.

Quote[/b] ]Electricity demand is not the only infrastructure placed under additional load. Health care in this country is provided free, as is education. The courts are also free, museums etc etc etc. Every single ammenity we have costs money to operate. From swimming pools to public toilets, the more people you add, the more they get used. The more you need.

Healthcare is free at the point of use, not free of charge. Immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else, so why shouldn't they have access to the healthcare they contribute to? Until they've got an NHS number they are only entitled to emergency treatment anyway.

Not many 7 year olds are coming here looking for work, most migrants are 18-30 and single with no children and their education and primary healthcare has been paid for by another country. An 18 year old from Poland employed washing dishes has cost the state nothing, unlike the tens of thousands that would have been spent on an English 18 year old.

Quote[/b] ]I have no problem with rich immigrants who can pay. They are to be encouraged.

How magnanimous of you.

Quote[/b] ]At the current rate of population growth a city the size of Birmingham is going to need to be built every five years.

I could use a reasonable argument here but it doesn't deserve one, so - ballcocks. Where is the city the size of Birmingham that has been built since 2002?

Quote[/b] ]I agree with you that current infrastructure levels have been under invested in. This is precisely the reason that additional growth in it's usuage should be curbed.

I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.

So where do you stop with that argument then? Someone from Gloucester cannot move to and work in Newcastle because they haven't contributed to the local services paid for out of council tax?

Since when has Eastern Europe been the other side of the world? And you must have one hell of a christmas card list if most of the 60 million people in this country aren't strangers to you.

Quote[/b] ]Two world wars have kept Londons population in check?

Are you suggesting we have another one in preference to enforcing border control?

I prefer to restrict immigration and promote birth control myself.

Not London's population, Britain's.

The world is overpopulated, not just Britain, no amount of border control will change that. Humans are like every other animal, they will go where the resources are. One day it will be Britons on the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not attempting to save the world, I'll be happy if I can save my own little patch. Better to fight the battles you can win.

Derek no longer drinks down the pub. Those days for him are over. He can't afford it.

A tabloid newspaper that picked up on this story, would not be making things up any more than I am.

You can tell me how in this advanced welfare state how Derek cannot be living in a halfway house and stealing sandwiches, and yet he still is. You can tell me they have education courses for the mentally handicapped.

What you tell me doesn't change anything.

The £80 he gets in rent and food money does not match the £250 he used to earn.

Renting accomodation is not so easy for someone on welfare than for someone employed, let alone someone as challeneged as Delboy.

The problem with this advanced welfare state is that Derek is now having to use it, where previously he had no call to.

You feel that the state has no need to protect the weak? To favour it's own children over the children of others? Before the immigration explosion, Derek, though weak, was strong enough to live a good life on his own terms. Now he is not.

In the case, he state hasn't protected the weak, it has created them.

I assume Derek is on incapacity benefit. It could be imcome support or Unemployment for all I know. He is perfectly capable fo work. But all the low paid jobs are taken.

For the record I have met countless people on incapacity benefit perfectly able to work.

The government prefers this than called unemployed people "unemployed". There are also people omn income support, and self employed benefit too. A benefits are benefits.

The government does have a lot of say where immigrants go. It provides many of them social housing. Glasgow is a good example. (It's somewhere North of Peterborough, I've heard). They house them there, and they use their freedom of movement to head south.

Immigrants do not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Helthcare is nominally provided by national insurance.

It's an insurance scheme. You have a car, you understand the principle. If too many people claim, the prices go up for everyone.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that their home governments are footing the bill for the health care they recieve in the U.K. What utter nonsense. Their primary healthcare is paid for out of U.K. taxation. (not that we don't contribute to their healthcare systems in their own countries, mind, we do that too).

Once again, lower paid people do not pay in the cost of the services they use. They are a drain on the resources not an equal participant and not a bonus asset.

Every immigrant that uses our already overstretched health service degrades the system as whole for the entire country.

As for the world being overpopulated, I agree, it's the root of the problem.

That the whole world suffers from the same problem, is not a valid reason why we here should ignore it. Quite the opposite.

Since 2002 there has been a massive increase in housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, you mean public property financed with public money. Let me ask you this: do think your mate Derek ever contributed a proportional share towards these public facilities, making 250 quid a week? I guess not. Perhaps he should pay more for them as well? Or should he receive preferential treatment, because "he's your mate and loyalty is all that counts"? What about young people and students, who haven't paid taxes yet? Perhaps they should pay more too?

He should receive preferential treatment because he is my mate.

As should my family members, your family members and your mates.

Or would you prefer we didn't discriminate and left your mates and family out in favour of complete strangers?

Young people and students particularly are an investment. Hopefully enough of them will go on in life to make enough money to pay for the rest of us.

I don't see differention being an added beurocracy at all. We already have customs stations at all ports of entry. We already have it. We  already pay for it.

The currently employed do contribute to the existing pension payments. I agree. Once again however the lowest paid don't make any significant contribution to anything.

The pensions crisis is caused by governments spending money that they have promised to invest into pension schemes, knowiung that they will not be in power or even alive when the issue arises. Any aleivation to this problem allows the government to continue to exasebate the probelm and not face up to the critical and fundamental reforms needed to resolve it.

Rather than actually start saving for the future as they are obliged too, they spunk the money on vote winners and say "don't worry immigration will save you!".

It won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i said if the work wouldn't get done the economy would collapse as in putting in perspective that low skill work is vital too. I didn't say without immigrants the economy would collapse. I merely said the Immigrants are doing work that is vital for the economy. Of course British people can do that work too instead but there's plenty of arguments why they can't substitute the work for the same price. Thus that solution is inferior and leads to decreased economic growth. Careful reading could have told you this.

Which doesn't change that 5 years ago before the big influx of immigrants, our low paid jobs were still all being done and our economy was stronger than it is today.

Sorry Doneval, I'm not going to play Google tennis with you. You have your figures, I have mine. I think it's fair to say that neither of us invented them. I don't really want to refute and rebutt a zillion economists.

Needless to say both your figures and mine are arguable. Only I'm not going to argue mine with you. They were taken from The Telegraph daily newspaper and can be found at it's online sight.

N.B. your 2000 data of 4% immigrant populous of the U.K. only goes to show the scale of immigration we have had in the last 7 years. It is now 8%.

That's a lot over a short period of time. The bulk of that in the last 2 years.

Like Britain, Japan and Germany's economy is not be driven by cheap labour.

India's economy is being driven by cheap labour.

China's economy is being driven by cheap labour.

Thailands ecomony is being driven by cheap labour.

As previously noted GDP is Gross Domestic Produce. The majority of British profit is generated abroad.

Majoritively through investment banking, and also through outsourced production. (Actual cheap labour).

GDP gives a poor reflection on U.K. wealth generation. We are not a big industrialised producer in the same way as Germany and Japan. It does not make up the bulk of our national income.

Britain is driven by banking, and Japan and Germany by industrial production. Yes immigrants do the low paid work, but the profit in all these culures is being made from the very few high skilled only.

No sources for that 90% Donne, loosely speaking only the top 5% pay more into the system than they take out.

This is pretty much common knowledge.

I gave a 5% "break/even/pay their way" allowance as an invention of my own, rather than try and present 5% as an exact figure.

In the U.K. If you use public transport, such as a bus, your fares are subsidised and you aren't paying road tax or fuel tax.

Car drivers are paying for the roads your bus drives on.

If you travel by train, the tracks are subsidsed. The tax payer is covering it.

Even national carrier airlines take the odd hand out once in a while.

I very much bet it is the same where you live.

Quote[/b] ]You make it sound like the UK was on the verge of collapsing because of resource shortage which is to use your words "nonsense". Besides it has been proven numerous times there is enough to feed the entire world. Only the distribution sucks. While the "rich" countries consume magnitudes more than they need the poorest get almost nothing.

Total testicles.

If food is abundant, the population expands until it uses up all available resources, in fact it over expands. A famine ensues and then the population rebalances. There cannot ever be enough food to feed the world. That's not how life on Earth works.

Anyone who prove that to you is an idiot.

Neither can food mountains here be shipped elsewhere. They are not sustainable, a glut in wheat produced here, may not be produced here next year.

The weather may change.

Those that did not starve this year would simple starve next year instead.

Further to this it is not economicaly viable to ship food to everywhere. The resources are not available to do it, nor in many places the infrastructure. As rich as we are here in the west, we are not gods. Our wealth has limits.

Do you honestly believe that if we could end world famine as easily as you suggest, no one would have done it?

I guess you do.

It doesn't matter how many papers you link me too Don, a random Google link isn't going to impress me. I could link you to a credable essay on how the moon landings were faked if you like.

If your own likeable and well presented logic was convincing enough to me, I shouldn't need your links, I would look it up for myself.

Quote[/b] ]You do realise that more skilled people would leave if there were only low skill jobs left for them in the UK? As I said before. immigrants in low skill jobs mostly do jobs that most British people simply don't want to do. At least not as a permanent source of income. So if you chase out the immigrants you'd maybe create jobs for a few Dereks but the majority of unemployed British people would not want to do those jobs. They will fight hard for the higher skill jobs instead and the "losers" would probably seek their luck in other European countries instead of going to wash dishes all their life. We have this "problem" or "blessing" in Switzerland. We get a lot of German immigrants. For our Economy they are really cheap workers but they are highly skilled. So what happens... you go to a hospital and you have only Germans there. Why? They can't find a job in Germany that suits their educations. They get offered to work in low skill jobs. They say "FU" and go to Austria or Switzerland where they are thankfully employed. They cost like 1/4 less than a Swiss person in the same position, they are often better educated and they speak the language. Perfect. For us. We get population growth of well educated people that are culturally almost assimilated. Shame for Germany. They get some kind of "medium-Brain drain".

But if it was as you say in Germany, and the immigrants are taking all the low paid jobs (8%?), why haven't their educated people stopped leaving?

Your logic is not re-inforced by your evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which doesn't change that 5 years ago before the big influx of immigrants, our low paid jobs were still all being done and our economy was stronger than it is today.

GDP Growth

2006 looks stronger to me than 2002-2003...

Quote[/b] ]

Needless to say both your figures and mine are arguable. Only I'm not going to argue mine with you. They were taken from The Telegraph daily newspaper and can be found at it's online sight.

Wrong. Mine are arguable. Yours aren't. Because you have none. Sorry, either you prove me you're the statistics yearbook of the UK in person or you have to provide your sources. Preferably so that I can check them. Read: linky link.

Quote[/b] ]N.B. your 2000 data of 4% immigrant populous of the U.K. only goes to show the scale of immigration we have had in the last 7 years. It is now 8%.

So what, in Germany it's about 12% for 2005. You're not the only country with immigration, you know? And remember, 4% in Germany is a much bigger absolute number than 4% in the UK.

Quote[/b] ]GDP gives a poor reflection on U.K. wealth generation. We are not a big industrialised producer in the same way as Germany and Japan. It does not make up the bulk of our national income.

While I agree the GDP is a poor measure but the "poor" effects of the measure applies to most western nations in a similar way. Your argumentation is silly. Firstly by your argumentation you are basically defeating your point of calling the German industry strong compared to the UK. As we have seen both GDP/capita are almost equal so either by your argumentation the UK economy must be either extremely strong to catch up with he German one or the German one must be extremely weak. That aside, the GDP does consider exports and not only industrial ones. Also services which include banking services etc...

Quote[/b] ]No sources for that 90% Donne, loosely speaking only the top 5% pay more into the system than they take out.

This is pretty much common knowledge.

no sources no relevance. Where would NASA have gotten if they explored space based on "common knowledge" wow_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]If food is abundant, the population expands until it uses up all available resources, in fact it over expands.

If food is abundant, the population expands until it uses up all available resources, in fact it over expands. A famine ensues and then the population rebalances.

Nice citation of the Volterra laws but unfortunately it has been proven wrong for the human population otherwise we'd never gotten above the population levels of the middle ages. All hail industrialisation! Which leads me to my point. Industrialisation enabled us to produce magnitudes more supply in basically anything that we actually need. And since also agriculture is industrialised we are able to produce a lot more food for example than we can ever consume (of course we don't produce as much food as we can because there is no market, except if you are in Switzerland or France where the agriculture is heavily subsidised and therefore a lot of the production simply isn't used for anything but gets thrown away to keep the market prices steady.

Quote[/b] ]There cannot ever be enough food to feed the world.

Well there is already enough food to feed the world.

Quote[/b] ]The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002, FAO 1998. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
World Hunger Facts 2006
Quote[/b] ]Neither can food mountains here be shipped elsewhere.

If you look at how many goods get shipped around the world (including food) you see that the capacity would be there theoretically. But I agree that shipping food is not the solution. Which only re-inforces my argument that the UK doesn't suffer from basic resource shortage as it gets to consume magnitudes more of it than it actually needs.

Quote[/b] ]Further to this it is not economicaly viable to ship food to everywhere.

Oh it is more than economically viable to ship food everywhere. Freight costs are low and work costs are even lower abroad. Actually it would be much more economically viable to send food to china to get it packed and send it back than to pack it in the UK if you need to pay extra employees for the packing, only problem is that the food might not be as fresh anymore.

Quote[/b] ]As rich as we are here in the west, we are not gods. Our wealth has limits.

Yeah the biggest limit being our egoism.

As I already explained the foreigners actually help to sustain and increase the UK's wealth so this argument is pretty silly anyway.

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly believe that if we could end world famine as easily as you suggest, no one would have done it?
I didn't suggest it was easy. I just said it is possible. We didn't do it because it because

1. it means we'd have to share our wealth with others which we obviously don't want, you being a prime example.

2. the main reason for famines is not the lack of food but poverty (people can't afford the food)

3. the countries affected by famines are very reluctant to ask for/accept international help for prestige reasons (doesn't look good in the dictators biography)

4. conflicts and corruption prevent the aid from reaching those that need it.

5. the solution should not be that we feed the world but that the world can feed itself (maybe with our assistance)

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't matter how many papers you link me too Don, a random Google link isn't going to impress me.

I actually found some of those articles with the university research network :O I found more but most aren't publicly accessible and I do not know if you have Uni research network access. Anyway the goal is not to impress you, the goal is to make an argument as opposed to pulling something out of my bottom.

Quote[/b] ]But if it was as you say in Germany, and the immigrants are taking all the low paid jobs (8%?), why haven't their educated people stopped leaving?

re-quote

Quote[/b] ]They will fight hard for the higher skill jobs instead and the "losers" would probably seek their luck in other European countries instead of going to wash dishes all their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought: 1980s British Convervatism, Thatcherism, was heavily informed by the ideas and agenda of modern, free-market economic thinking. As PM, Thatcher worked hard to break up state monopolies, and to create a much more 'fluid' economy (in terms of free movement of goods, of labour and capital). In essence, 1980s Conservatives placed their faith in the 'market' to dynamically solve its own problems, redressing imbalances through 'natural market forces', as opposed to state intervention. If you ask most Conservatives today, they will argue that (by and large) the Thatcherite governments of the 1980s delivered on this agenda, leaving us with a far more market-oriented economy today. They would also argue that for this same reason, Chancellor Brown inherited a pretty good national economy when Blair became PM.

So here's a rich little irony: the EU is a market, and the influx of workers from the new member states is a perfect example of market forces at work. Low-wage posts are being filled by in-comers who have lower expectations, and are therefore more attractive to employers than local labour. So, suddenly, 'market forces' are evil? Pfft!

C'mon. I read the Torygraph too, so this is not a sniping post from a disgruntled socialist. We cannot believe in the market, and then make exceptions when it forces us to work for our dinner. Put down the Daily Mail, and step away from Mr Tebbit. Slowly. wink_o.gif

Anyway, what I find absolutely baffling is that at a time when we face a shortage of teaching and medical staff, our government and its agencies expend vast amounts of energy preventing professionals with overseas qualifications from practising in the UK, instead of doing its damndest to create rapid conversion programmes. In 2005 I met a wonderful, bright and articulate Polish teacher with a degree and mountains of enthusiasm, who had come to England seeking work.

She was cleaning my apartment, because that was all she was allowed to do.

banghead.gif

Remember, kids, as the Disposible Heroes used to say:

/ Hipocrisy is the greatest luxury,

/ Raise the double standard

- Fer <TZW> smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which doesn't change that 5 years ago before the big influx of immigrants, our low paid jobs were still all being done and our economy was stronger than it is today.

GDP Growth

2006 looks stronger to me than 2002-2003...

Looks about average for that 7 year period. Certainly not noticeably higher. And certainly lower than it's peak. If GDP was driven by migration we should see a steady and marked rise from 2004-2007. (1/2 a million new immigrants)

But we do not. We see an overall drop and at one point the lowest growth in GDP for the last 13 years.

Once again you are judging the U.K. economy by it's GDP.

Production is not our primary source of income.

Most of our money is made abroad. It is not calculated in GDP. It is not contibuted to by low income domestic employees.

We got above the population levels of the middle ages by improved farming, sanitation and medical techniques.

As much as you may wish to believe that there are only starving people in the world because fat people are evil or whatever, that isn't the case.

Freight costs are not low.

During those disasters when we send food to mountain villiages etc, all that food is shipped in by helicopter.

There are not roads, not ports and not railways everywhere people live. No infrastructure to move hundreds of millions of tons of food every day.

There are not social organisations capable of distribution everywhere, no civil services, no milkman, no post.

The entire world does not look like Switzerland.

This sounds like a student fantasy. Idealism over practical experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, what I find absolutely baffling is that at a time when we face a shortage of teaching and medical staff, our government and its agencies expend vast amounts of energy preventing professionals with overseas qualifications from practising in the UK, instead of doing its damndest to create rapid conversion programmes. In 2005 I met a wonderful, bright and articulate Polish teacher with a degree and mountains of enthusiasm, who had come to England seeking work.

She was cleaning my apartment, because that was all she was allowed to do.

Mrs Baff is a Japanese school teacher with about 15 years of experience, she may teach in England in a private capacity, and sometimes does, but if she wishes to get an equivalent/more permanent position here, in a state school for example, she must take an access course and then do her PGCE.

PGCE is a two year course. An access course if required is likely to be another year.

I'm not sure how University is funded these days, but

I suspect your Polish girl will at least have to pay her own college fee's.

As an EU resident she is entitled to all the same student benefits as a U.K. citizen.

There are no end of teaching assistant jobs available. She should try the local schools.

She could also try a TEFL qualification to work the language schools which is much shorter, (1-3 months) if her English is up to it.

It has been my experience that there are many, many foreign educated doctors and nurses in our National Health system.

I was of the opinion that we actively sought recruitment from abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks about average for that 7 year period. Certainly not noticeably higher. And certainly lower than it's peak. If GDP was driven by migration we should see a steady and marked rise from 2004-2007. (1/2 a million new immigrants)

But we do not. We see an overall drop and at one point the lowest growth in GDP for the last 13 years.

This one dimensional thinking is so wrong. That is not how the economy works my friend and linking immigration directly to GDP growth is plain silly. Your conclusions are wrong. Also I never said that Immigration would directly lead to GDP growth too. What I said is that without Immigration your GDP growth had been overall lower. That is a difference.

What the figures merely show is that the UK had a very healthy economical growth in the past years. That growth is reflecting the global economic situation for developed countries in those periods very nicely and it generally is between 1.5 and 4% which is very healthy for a western country. 4% is even getting almost too much if it would stay for a longer period. The conclusion is that the UK economy is doing well.

Let's have a look at your beloved German economy for the same period of time for comparison:

Quote[/b] ]

2000 +3,2%

2001 +1,2%

2002 0,0%

2003 – 0,2%

2004 +1,2%

2005 +0,9%

D-STATIS: Wichtige Zusammenhänge im Überblick

Quote[/b] ]Once again you are judging the U.K. economy by it's GDP.

Production is not our primary source of income.

Most of our money is made abroad. It is not calculated in GDP. It is not contibuted to by low income domestic employees.

this is getting boring

Quote[/b] ]While I agree the GDP is a poor measure but the "poor" effects of the measure applies to most western nations in a similar way. Your argumentation is silly. [...] That aside, the GDP does consider exports and not only industrial ones. Also services which include banking services etc...
Quote[/b] ]The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time

Wikipedia: GDP

GDP is not based on industrial or agricultural production only. By your argumentation Switzerland would have be competing with Third World countries in the GDP ranking because our Economy is even more depending on the service sector than yours.

Quote[/b] ]We got above the population levels of the middle ages by improved farming, sanitation and medical techniques.
It's one part and it's basically what I said concerning industrialised agriculture. Only it's not the topic so I didn't go into all the details but that would be no problem. There's a reason why I went to the "Human History and Economy" course.
Quote[/b] ]As much as you may wish to believe that there are only starving people in the world because fat people are evil or whatever, that isn't the case.

You're making up stuff again about what I believe.

Quote[/b] ]Freight costs are not low.

It is very cheap to send Goods around half the world when using international transportation companies. Why else do so many firms send their goods around half the world during production before they end up in the domestic stores? Because it costs them next to nothing compared to the costs of producing it at home.

Quote[/b] ]During those disasters when we send food to mountain villiages etc, all that food is shipped in by helicopter.

My argumentation concerning global transport capacities and freight cost is something fundamentally different than a government sponsored Media stunt to react to emergency situations when our precious holiday resorts get swept away by natural disasters. - I am not talking about emergency relief. I am talking about theoretical capacities for long term trade and assistance with underdeveloped regions.

Quote[/b] ]There are not roads, not ports and not railways everywhere people live. No infrastructure to move hundreds of millions of tons of food every day.

You don't need to deliver hundred millions tons of food every day to some desert village with 20 people. A few mules and an adequate load of food would do just fine.

It is simply a fact that also non Europeans have discovered the use of roads and are maintaining and building them where there are large concentrations of people that need such infrastructure for various reasons - like trade.

And believe it or not. They actually got on their feet and rebuilt the roads and railways and ports after the Tsunami/Earthquake struck their regions. So those helicopter stunts are only needed for short term emergency responses.

Quote[/b] ]This sounds like a student fantasy. Idealism over practical experience.

Of course. I am an Idealist. But that is a good thing. But I am not naive. As you have seen I have listed a nice list of reasons why my ideals don't come true. Besides your "practical experience" in macroeconomics doesn't seem to be that huge either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time

Wikipedia: GDP

Re-read please.

95% of the goods I own are produced (and sold) abroad. My income is entirely unregistered by GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time

Wikipedia: GDP

Re-read please.

why? I know money is not calculated. It's the GDP. It measures the the value of the things that generated the money - not the cashflows itself. Hence I am highlighting "services" for you. All the services that generate money "abroad" that benefits the UK economy are exported services measured with the GDP. If the money is made with foreign firms in foreign countries with foreign money then - obviously it's not the British economy that benefits from it and thus it's not measured in the British GDP - even if the CEO is a British citizen. But that should be obvious.

Quote[/b] ]95% of the goods I own are produced (and sold) abroad.

That my friend are imports. They are measured with the GDP as well. But Imports are buying foreign services/goods so they have a negative effect on the GDP - obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GDP

Gross Domestic Produce.

Foreign investment is not domestic produce.

Made abroad, sold abroad.

The profits from American and Chinese GDP among others comes to me. This is the primary source of income for the British economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made abroad, sold abroad is not benefiting the British economy, so what is your point? If you own them (assuming you live in Britan) then those are Imports as they somehow had to reach your hands and mostly I assume it wasn't for free so it had an effect on British GDP when you imported them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's benefitting the British economy. I own the companies, they send me the profits. I spend it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at one point you took the money away from the British economy by investing it in foreign economy. So this is only swapping ownership and not an economic actions. Hence this does not necessarily produce new values. Therefore this investment is ignored and also if you sell your shares/whatever again. Now you get returns on your investment but those should be measured as part of national income and the data should come from the tax declaration. However I am not sure how the GDP is exactly measured in England. I know in Germany/Switzerland your profits in that case is like a banking service so the ROI is the value of an exported service which gets measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The returns of foreign investment are measured as part of the national income, and I am taxed on them both in their host countries and in my own.  They are not however measured as part of GDP.

The money I have removed from the British economy to invest abroad provides greater return than if invested domestically. That's why I (we) do it. This is better for the economy.

Banking services are measured as GDP. However we own foreign banks too. So their services are measured under their host nations GDP not ours.

GDP is GDP whatever country you are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×