Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

Not at all, I substantiate my own views (based on life experience) with the evidence from official sources.

I've told you what official sources do. The tell us exactly what they want us to know.

Here's my starter for 10: Weapons of mass destruction. 45 minutes.

Maybe you'll come back and tell me that the minimal debris from the other two towers caused Tower 7 to implode on itself several hours later. Cos that's what the Yanks were told by their Government, so it MUST be right.

Or that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman... lol

How big a shovel do you want, Esk...???

 

[Goat]

I've told you what official sources do. The tell us exactly what they want us to know.

Here's my starter for 10: Weapons of mass destruction. 45 minutes.

Maybe you'll come back and tell me that the minimal debris from the other two towers caused Tower 7 to implode on itself several hours later. Cos that's what the Yanks were told by their Government, so it MUST be right.

Or that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman... lol

How big a shovel do you want, Esk...???

Are you suggesting jet fuel cant melt steel beams?

 

[The Esk]

1. Which is exactly what I said earlier. Thank you for agreeing with me.

2. What exactly is your problem with those who have worked all their life and have paid in all their life.
Quite frankly, your attitude, and the desire to state at every opportunity (either covertly [as above] or otherwise) that somehow the immigrant population (which is a catch-all phrase to include ALL those who enter the country) enriches the complete infrastructure of the country at every turn, is wrong, and entirely misplaced.
You are simply peddling the same old trash that we have heard from the Remainers since 24th June, and it is boring, boring, boring...
Why not talk about how wonderful the EU is with characters like Juncker. Or how wonderful it would be with a European army. You, and the rest of those who take your side, have remained curiously silent on those kind of matters.

Selective again, Esk. But we (those who voted Leave) can see through all the bluster.

What on earth are you on about?

Immigrants collectively contribute to the economy. Some will contribute more, others will take, however collectively they contribute.

EU immigrants contribute more than non EU immigrants (unsurprisingly given greater education opportunities and greater cultural links) therefore the greater the EU element of the immigrant arrivals the better for all.

The EU benefits all in the UK economically and increases the rights of all our citizens. It's not a perfect institution but the benefits outweigh the negatives.

We will be poorer in every respect outside the EU than within.

 

[Elong]

1. Which is exactly what I said earlier. Thank you for agreeing with me.

2. What exactly is your problem with those who have worked all their life and have paid in all their life.
Quite frankly, your attitude, and the desire to state at every opportunity (either covertly [as above] or otherwise) that somehow the immigrant population (which is a catch-all phrase to include ALL those who enter the country) enriches the complete infrastructure of the country at every turn, is wrong, and entirely misplaced.
You are simply peddling the same old trash that we have heard from the Remainers since 24th June, and it is boring, boring, boring...
Why not talk about how wonderful the EU is with characters like Juncker. Or how wonderful it would be with a European army. You, and the rest of those who take your side, have remained curiously silent on those kind of matters.

Selective again, Esk. But we (those who voted Leave) can see through all the bluster.

So you're saying that you voted to leave not because of economic reasons, but because you don't want foreigners in your country?

Amazing.

 

[Elong]

What on earth are you on about?

Immigrants collectively contribute to the economy. Some will contribute more, others will take, however collectively they contribute.

EU immigrants contribute more than non EU immigrants (unsurprisingly given greater education opportunities and greater cultural links) therefore the greater the EU element of the immigrant arrivals the better for all.

The EU benefits all in the UK economically and increases the rights of all our citizens. It's not a perfect institution but the benefits outweigh the negatives.

We will be poorer in every respect outside the EU than within.

In exactly the same way people born in the UK act. In fact, the percentage of migrants who contribute, compared to "natives" who contribute, is no comparison, simply due to immigration laws already in place. They HAVE to contribute to the economy.

As a migrant myself, an Englishman living in another country, I'm appalled at people's stance and opinion over this.

 

[Joey66]

In exactly the same way people born in the UK act. In fact, the percentage of migrants who contribute, compared to "natives" who contribute, is no comparison, simply due to immigration laws already in place. They HAVE to contribute to the economy.

As a migrant myself, an Englishman living in another country, I'm appalled at people's stance and opinion over this.

Are you upset with the 17.5 million who voted OUT democratically?
I am pro immigration controlled with a working visa or a official student visa not freedom of movement also our own sovereign Parliment back in our courts three months both campaigns told lies but surly you cannot reverse a democratic vote ?
Students who cannot gain employment after 12 months should return as anyone who's job ends in the future when we leave- At the moment we need immigration as we have a massive skill shortage this has to be addressed by skilling up our school leavers in the future in technical trades and basic trades!

 

[Elong]

Are you upset with the 17.5 million who voted OUT democratically?
I am pro immigration controlled with a working visa or a official student visa not freedom of movement also our own sovereign Parliment back in our courts three months both campaigns told lies but surly you cannot reverse a democratic vote ?
Students who cannot gain employment after 12 months should return as anyone who's job ends in the future when we leave- At the moment we need immigration as we have a massive skill shortage this has to be addressed by skilling up our school leavers in the future in technical trades and basic trades!

Whilst respecting their democratic right to vote, of course I am upset with how it turned out. However that's what the country wants and you have to respect that. It's just a personal feeling of sadness for me.

My views are far different to yours and others in this thread Joey hence why I don't partake in it as it usually leads to good lads falling out. Neither person will ever be wrong

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Rather than citing someone else, can you post your own thoughts in response to my original question, please?

You've waxed lyrical about immigrants being net contributors, and I wouldn't deny that, individually, when working and paying taxes etc they very well may be.

But my question centred around the overall cost across society, to all the tax payers. Are you saying that the British chef still looking for work is not a burden to the national coffers? Perhaps you're saying the tax paid by the immigrant worker who got the chef job covers the benefits he/his family claim off the state?

Why would I repeat what someone else has said better than me? I'm saying that there isn't a fixed number of jobs, and it isn't a case of me taking your job or vice versa. What's more, a thriving economy, supported by the best people for the job getting the job, helps to create jobs. Did you read the Krugman piece? It's very widely cited on this topic

If you like, think of it in terms of the Premier League. I suspect most would agree that the league has become much better with the arrival of foreign players. As a result, it has also become significantly richer.

Now, I hear you say, at what cost to the English player trying to make his way in the game. Indeed, for the Premier League is bound by rules that limit the number of clubs. Society has no such rules, so if the PL was more like the economy, that massive increase in revenue would have resulted in more clubs being formed, and thus more jobs for all, including English players.

Let me flip things around. Technology has been well known for automating various professions down the years (and thus taking their jobs). Should we henceforth ban all forms of technology just as we're banning migrants? I dare say most would say no, as history tells us that new work is created, even though previous work is automated. This study is a fine example - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2690435

The study saw over 300 occupations examined over a 33 year time-scale from 1980 to try and examine the impact of automation. To put it bluntly, it emerged that employment generally rose fastest in professions with the most automation.

The idea that automation kills jobs isn’t true historically, and if you look at the last 30 years, it’s not true then either,“ the author says. “Right now, the best thing that can happen to you is to get some automation to do your job better.”

I posted a couple of videos earlier from an economist at LSE talking about this issue, and the same is happening with immigration.

So yes, I will cite other people where their knowledge of a topic is far greater than mine. Unlike Mr Gove, I kinda regard people who take the time and effort to study a topic in depth in quite high regard

 

[bflefc]

Why would I repeat what someone else has said better than me? I'm saying that there isn't a fixed number of jobs, and it isn't a case of me taking your job or vice versa. What's more, a thriving economy, supported by the best people for the job getting the job, helps to create jobs. Did you read the Krugman piece? It's very widely cited on this topic

If you like, think of it in terms of the Premier League. I suspect most would agree that the league has become much better with the arrival of foreign players. As a result, it has also become significantly richer.

Now, I hear you say, at what cost to the English player trying to make his way in the game. Indeed, for the Premier League is bound by rules that limit the number of clubs. Society has no such rules, so if the PL was more like the economy, that massive increase in revenue would have resulted in more clubs being formed, and thus more jobs for all, including English players.

Let me flip things around. Technology has been well known for automating various professions down the years (and thus taking their jobs). Should we henceforth ban all forms of technology just as we're banning migrants? I dare say most would say no, as history tells us that new work is created, even though previous work is automated. This study is a fine example - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2690435

The study saw over 300 occupations examined over a 33 year time-scale from 1980 to try and examine the impact of automation. To put it bluntly, it emerged that employment generally rose fastest in professions with the most automation.

The idea that automation kills jobs isn’t true historically, and if you look at the last 30 years, it’s not true then either,“ the author says. “Right now, the best thing that can happen to you is to get some automation to do your job better.”

I posted a couple of videos earlier from an economist at LSE talking about this issue, and the same is happening with immigration.

So yes, I will cite other people where their knowledge of a topic is far greater than mine. Unlike Mr Gove, I kinda regard people who take the time and effort to study a topic in depth in quite high regard

All rather hypothetical and quite liberal in its outlook, I'd say.

There is nothing in either the article you previously cited - which I did read, and then I read up about the author to give it more context - that either proves or disproves my original question/scenario.

Ignore automation for a moment, as that is irrelevant for a chef (in the scenario I offered up). What I want to know is if the net contribution to the economy outweighs the cost to the economy of supporting the U.K. citizen who didn't get that job.

Or has this cost of supporting that individual and possibly his family also been factored in when looking at immigrants' contribution to the public coffers.

Stop droning on automation, and stick that simple scenario, please. I take your suggestion that one job to an outsider could lead to another job being created, but it's all somewhat hypothetical and all I really want to know is whether the 2nd/3rd impact costs of an immigrant being employed are factored in to any calculations banded about that they make a net contribution.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

All rather hypothetical and quite liberal in its outlook, I'd say.

There is nothing in either the article you previously cited - which I did read, and then I read up about the author to give it more context - that either proves or disproves my original question/scenario.

Ignore automation for a moment, as that is irrelevant for a chef (in the scenario I offered up). What I want to know is if the net contribution to the economy outweighs the cost to the economy of supporting the U.K. citizen who didn't get that job.

Or has this cost of supporting that individual and possibly his family also been factored in when looking at immigrants' contribution to the public coffers.

Stop droning on automation, and stick that simple scenario, please. I take your suggestion that one job to an outsider could lead to another job being created, but it's all somewhat hypothetical and all I really want to know is whether the 2nd/3rd impact costs of an immigrant being employed are factored in to any calculations banded about that they make a net contribution.

The parallels between automation and immigration are quite apt though. It's something British economist Henry Martyn spoke about back in the 1700s. He used the analogy of technological innovation to make his point, and suggested that by using a tool (a sawmill in his case), we could perform the work of 30 men with the labor of two men.

Now of course, we could employ those 30 men instead, but that would be a waste of human resources. The same is true for most technologies. Martyn went on to compare this with globalization, and suggested that if another country can produce textiles (for instance) more efficiently than we can, then it is akin to having a new technology to do likewise, and we should jump at such an opportunity and instead deploy our resources to trade with that nation in areas that we can excel.

It's a very real possibility in cooking. McDonalds have already spoken about largely automating their restaurants, and a number of automated cooking machines have been developed as prototypes already.

The economy benefits by employers having access to the best people (or indeed machine) possible to do the job they require doing. Whether that entity is British, French or machine isn't really that relevant.

We're living in a rapidly changing world at the moment, or as the WEF call it the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and that pace of change requires people to be updating their skills perpetually or they will quickly find them redundant. It's hard to stress that enough. I don't question that more can be done to help (over and above the ~11,000 hours of free schooling every person receives) people adapt to these changes, but equally people need to want to help themselves.

The first stage of that is accepting the situation they find themselves in, and I'm afraid blaming immigrants is merely distracting from the job ahead. The migrants get it, for they've traveled a long way to better themselves. The natives?

 

[bflefc]

The parallels between automation and immigration are quite apt though. It's something British economist Henry Martyn spoke about back in the 1700s. He used the analogy of technological innovation to make his point, and suggested that by using a tool (a sawmill in his case), we could perform the work of 30 men with the labor of two men.

Now of course, we could employ those 30 men instead, but that would be a waste of human resources. The same is true for most technologies. Martyn went on to compare this with globalization, and suggested that if another country can produce textiles (for instance) more efficiently than we can, then it is akin to having a new technology to do likewise, and we should jump at such an opportunity and instead deploy our resources to trade with that nation in areas that we can excel.

It's a very real possibility in cooking. McDonalds have already spoken about largely automating their restaurants, and a number of automated cooking machines have been developed as prototypes already.

The economy benefits by employers having access to the best people (or indeed machine) possible to do the job they require doing. Whether that entity is British, French or machine isn't really that relevant.

We're living in a rapidly changing world at the moment, or as the WEF call it the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and that pace of change requires people to be updating their skills perpetually or they will quickly find them redundant. It's hard to stress that enough. I don't question that more can be done to help (over and above the ~11,000 hours of free schooling every person receives) people adapt to these changes, but equally people need to want to help themselves.

The first stage of that is accepting the situation they find themselves in, and I'm afraid blaming immigrants is merely distracting from the job ahead. The migrants get it, for they've traveled a long way to better themselves. The natives?

You're doing a very good job at evading what is a very simple question!

I'm not blaming immigrants one bit - I'm just questioning some of the statements being banded about throughout this whole debate. I worry that the secondary effects are not factored into any claim that any immigrant worker - yes, that includes U.K. workers heading overseas - make a net contribution. I want to know if the 2nd/3rd order costs are taken into account: I strongly suspect they aren't, hence this particular claim doesn't stack up in my mind.

I'm anti-EU but NOT because of immigration - although I do believe that it needs to be controlled properly for a variety of reasons (including, importantly, security). My real dislike of the EU was primarily over sovereignty and how I feel their powers have reached too far into individual national apparatus such as the judiciary. No blame from my perspective about immigrants - sorry if that doesn't match any Remainer's pre-conceived assumptions about me, my thinking or my background.

 

[abelard]

The study saw over 300 occupations examined over a 33 year time-scale from 1980 to try and examine the impact of automation. To put it bluntly, it emerged that employment generally rose fastest in professions with the most automation.

The idea that automation kills jobs isn’t true historically, and if you look at the last 30 years, it’s not true then either,“ the author says. “Right now, the best thing that can happen to you is to get some automation to do your job better.”

Can you explain why we should assume that current technological disruptions aren't qualitatively different than in the past? And why we should assume technology or the "free market" will sort everything out, beyond just asserting that it will?

For example, in the US, Truck Driver is by far the most common job in most states.

It's a brutal job that is almost inherently unhealthy; it keeps families apart; and labour code violations are endemic, such that drivers are almost compelled by the competition to take drugs to stay up for the required shift lengths, and many don't even feel they have time to stop to use the loo. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ave-to-defecate-urinate-in-vans-a7411001.html

It is also practically the only thing left that allows people without uni to earn a living wage. There are about 3.5 million truckers in the US, almost 3% of its full-time work force. And within the decade, we might have the ability to replace all of them with machines. What happens to their families? Where do they go? What do they do? If McDonalds and friends automate to crush the Fight for 15 Movement, they won't even have that left. So how does this actually play out, such that it's "the best thing that can happen to [them]"

At this point most economists will remind us that Malthus was ultimately wrong, that Paul Ehrlich was ultimately wrong, and that technology we don't even understand yet will magically save us. Some say the same thing will come into being and prevent global warming. I can't be bothered to track them all down, but there's no doubt a litany of Mughal, Qing or Ottoman texts projecting the same certainty. But it seems to me that these views are based more on quasi-religious Enlightenment-era views of never ending progress more than anything actually concrete. We know that in fact, things get worse, economies collapse, states fail, and problems go unsolved.

"Lassez-faire" was initially more a religious doctrine than an economic one. How dare puny mortals interfere with the wishes of god, expressed via the "free market." This is why during the Irish Famine, for example, Trevelyan and friends refused to prevent the Irish from starving. Ireland throughout the period was a net exporter of agricultural products to the UK. The Famine, as Trevelyan put it, was not the result of human error but rather, "the judgement of God." "The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine," he wrote, "but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people"

We are a secular society now, but the logic still holds. Free market hardliners can accept just about any outcome regardless of the human toll so long as they deem it to have been "freely" derived. Like Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss, it represents "the best of all possible worlds." And this is the cold comfort that we offer to those (never "us") whose lives have thus been disrupted or even destroyed. Of course, the idea of a "free market" actually being allowed to run in practice is laughable. No country has ever industrialized or "modernized" without careful state nurturing through tariffs and research and investment, from Germany, France, Japan and the US in the 1800s, to Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and maybe now China, Malaysia and Vietnam after the war. Some are competently run and succeed, others are mismanaged and fail. Private enterprise invests a negligible amount in R&D compared to government. Virtually every major postwar technological innovation in the US has been government funded to some degree or another, usually by the Defence Department. There isn't a single iPhone part developed or iPhone developer trained without extensive government support. Where would Silicon Valley be without the internet and NSF grants? And we don't even care enough to get them to pay taxes anymore.

TLDR, I know, I know. But even as we intervene to protect our corporate cartels and strike trade deals to give them extra-legal privileges and monopolies abroad, we in the Anglo-Saxon world also just discard the abruptly unemployable on the curb with the trash - truckers and McDonalds workers. It isn't so much that technology and markets make everything better so much as that we decide in advance that their outcomes - however destructive they may be - are inherently just. This is a political as much as a market-driven phenomenon. Technological changes are inevitable to a large extent, but we do have the ability to manage the pace and intensity of their impact. But Informed by the same "free market" ideological convictions, we've been driving up the cost of education, making home-ownership a luxury, reducing the quality and increasing the price of health care, crushing worker representation, eliminating basic public services, and, icing on the cake, pathologizing and humiliating the victims, as though it's simply a problem of motivation, and the scientifically-documented trauma of long-term poverty doesn't exist. We did this in the US when even white people began to suffer (http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...dysfunction-real-opportunity-needed-not-trump) and I expect we'll do the same when it's the truckers' turn.

I think Brexit and Trump are extremely counter-productive and will only make things worse for their proponents, but at the very least they suggest that it's time to take them seriously, and stop assuming that political decisions and outcomes that serve us and hurt them are merely "free" or "natural" processes. "Laissez faire" is not going to solve this problem, unless we define it a priori as the solution, come what may.

Right, that's enough... it's embarrassing how long it turned out to be. I'm just... more skeptical of blasé liberalist teleological optimism.

 

[The Cowboy]

What on earth are you on about?

Immigrants collectively contribute to the economy. Some will contribute more, others will take, however collectively they contribute.

EU immigrants contribute more than non EU immigrants (unsurprisingly given greater education opportunities and greater cultural links)therefore the greater the EU element of the immigrant arrivals the better for all.

The EU benefits all in the UK economically and increases the rights of all our citizens. It's not a perfect institution but the benefits outweigh the negatives.

We will be poorer in every respect outside the EU than within.

Eh?

Who has better educational prospects, someone from Romania, or someone from Singapore, Japan, China?

Who has greater cultural links, someone from Latvia or someone from the USA, Australia, New Zealand?

 

[The Esk]

@Joey66 your mate is a real man of the people....

 

[Clint Planet]

Another of those entitled Tories that plays the less-well-off like a banjo and then they thank him for it. You couldn't make it up.