Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Labour STILL not odds-on for an overall majority – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Let's clear this one up.
    Are the Tories and their supporters in favour of higher wages or not?
    Because they give every impression of being hugely in favour in theory.
    But opposed to every "greedy and unaffordable" request for a pay rise in practice.

    II am in favour of higher wages that are earned, that is paid by an increase in productivity. This is sustainable and in everyone's interests. Higher wages which are not earned will prove illusory because they will generate inflation and the real value will, at best, remain where it was. The problem of the last several years is that our productivity has not been improving materially which makes real increases in wages almost impossible.

    There is of course the argument that the cake should be cut differently rather than focusing on the size of the cake. Unfortunately that seems to be the primary focus of our politics at the moment. It is, to revive an earlier theme on this thread, divisive.
    But. From where is productivity increased?
    Chronic, long-term failure to invest in the means to higher productivity is not the fault of the low paid. Quite the opposite.
    Pay is fundamentally a function of the equilibrium supply of labour vs the demand for it. Productivity has nowt to do with it, however much you may wish it to be so. Even disregarding all problems of measurement.
    So. Some seem to be simultaneously arguing that low pay is the fault of immigration increasing the labour supply. And then furiously resisting higher pay in sectors with huge numbers of vacancies also.
    In the long-run, wages must reflect real productivity.

    In the short-term there is a trade-off between capital and labour. Things like trade unionism help protect labour share. As pointed out by another poster, the Tories tend to advantage capital.
    Keynes had an opinion on the long run. I'm talking specifically about wages policy in 2022-3.
    Wages policy now has to confront the reality that the British economy has delivered the most stagnant decline in productivity growth since records began.

    The last ten years or so have been unprecedented.

    However, I think the board generally believes that capital (ie wealth) is at least undertaxed compared to labour (ie income).
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,060

    Seattle Times ($) - Facing eviction, Twitter closes Seattle office, reports say

    After laying off 208 workers in Washington, Twitter is now facing eviction and will close its downtown Seattle office, according to reports Thursday by The New York Times and tech news publication Platformer.

    Since 2014, the social media company’s Seattle office has been at Century Square tower downtown in a space that can accommodate 200 workers. According to The New York Times, janitorial and security services at Twitter’s Seattle office have now been cut, and in some cases the remaining employees have resorted to bringing their own toilet paper.

    Landlord Unico Properties did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Seattle Times. Court records do not show any eviction lawsuits pending against Twitter.

    In November, 208 workers at the Seattle office were cut among the 3,700 companywide a week after Tesla founder Elon Musk completed his $44 billion Twitter acquisition. Twitter had a 7,500-person workforce.

    Platformer reported Thursday evening that Twitter’s remaining Seattle-based workers have been directed to work from home.

    Office closures are the latest step taken by Musk to cut costs at Twitter. This month, on a live forum on Twitter, he said the company was on track to have a “negative cash flow situation” of $3 billion next year due to a lack of advertising revenue and increased costs, such as debt payments.

    SSI - ". . . Twitter’s remaining Seattle-based workers have been directed to work from home." - updating their resumes!

    "... the remaining employees have resorted to bringing their own toilet paper."

    They used up all the old supplies trying to cope with the ginormous sh*t who now owns the company. ;)
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232

    WillG said:

    dixiedean said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Let's clear this one up.
    Are the Tories and their supporters in favour of higher wages or not?
    Because they give every impression of being hugely in favour in theory.
    But opposed to every "greedy and unaffordable" request for a pay rise in practice.

    II am in favour of higher wages that are earned, that is paid by an increase in productivity. This is sustainable and in everyone's interests. Higher wages which are not earned will prove illusory because they will generate inflation and the real value will, at best, remain where it was. The problem of the last several years is that our productivity has not been improving materially which makes real increases in wages almost impossible.

    There is of course the argument that the cake should be cut differently rather than focusing on the size of the cake. Unfortunately that seems to be the primary focus of our politics at the moment. It is, to revive an earlier theme on this thread, divisive.
    But. From where is productivity increased?
    Chronic, long-term failure to invest in the means to higher productivity is not the fault of the low paid. Quite the opposite.
    Pay is fundamentally a function of the equilibrium supply of labour vs the demand for it. Productivity has nowt to do with it, however much you may wish it to be so. Even disregarding all problems of measurement.
    So. Some seem to be simultaneously arguing that low pay is the fault of immigration increasing the labour supply. And then furiously resisting higher pay in sectors with huge numbers of vacancies also.
    There is a whole wealth of literature on the reason why Europe, especially Britain, had an industrial revolution and China didn't. The main reason is that Europe had a surplus of land and shortage of labour so capitalists paid for labour-saving devices that improved productivity, which created a positive cycle of capital accumulation to make the next round of investment.

    In China, land was in short supply and labour was abundant, so capital owners simply focused on crowding more and more workers onto smaller plots of land. The return to that was quickly used up by further population growth.

    This is what still happens with business owners today. If you can't get the staff, you are forced to automate processes that were previously done manually. That means higher productivity of those remaning employees you do have.
    The reason for the industrial revolution is still hotly debated. It’s a favourite topic in economic history, perhaps *the* favourite topic.

    But in contemporary economics, there is not a substantial school of thought that really questions the positive effect of immigration on economic growth, via greater demand + improved specialisation. There are also the effects of improved demographics given ageing Western societies.

    A bit like how contemporary economics leaned towards supporting the EMU, even when an actual assessment of the arguments showed it was a disastrous idea, as it has proved to be. The reason is that academic economics is dominated by the sort of people that choose to go into public-funded intellectual pursuit and value financial reward less. I.e. left wing people with the inherent biases associated with that... e.g. support for internationalism and diversity. This is also why mainstream economics typically pays no attention to cultural difference, even though it is clearly a driving factor of economics.

    As mentioned, repeatedly, immigration is a positive thing but the AVERAGES hide a lot. In other parts of economics, there is sensible thinking about the marginal unit of return. But this is never applied to the marginal migrant.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    dixiedean said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Let's clear this one up.
    Are the Tories and their supporters in favour of higher wages or not?
    Because they give every impression of being hugely in favour in theory.
    But opposed to every "greedy and unaffordable" request for a pay rise in practice.

    II am in favour of higher wages that are earned, that is paid by an increase in productivity. This is sustainable and in everyone's interests. Higher wages which are not earned will prove illusory because they will generate inflation and the real value will, at best, remain where it was. The problem of the last several years is that our productivity has not been improving materially which makes real increases in wages almost impossible.

    There is of course the argument that the cake should be cut differently rather than focusing on the size of the cake. Unfortunately that seems to be the primary focus of our politics at the moment. It is, to revive an earlier theme on this thread, divisive.
    But. From where is productivity increased?
    Chronic, long-term failure to invest in the means to higher productivity is not the fault of the low paid. Quite the opposite.
    Pay is fundamentally a function of the equilibrium supply of labour vs the demand for it. Productivity has nowt to do with it, however much you may wish it to be so. Even disregarding all problems of measurement.
    So. Some seem to be simultaneously arguing that low pay is the fault of immigration increasing the labour supply. And then furiously resisting higher pay in sectors with huge numbers of vacancies also.
    There is a whole wealth of literature on the reason why Europe, especially Britain, had an industrial revolution and China didn't. The main reason is that Europe had a surplus of land and shortage of labour so capitalists paid for labour-saving devices that improved productivity, which created a positive cycle of capital accumulation to make the next round of investment.

    In China, land was in short supply and labour was abundant, so capital owners simply focused on crowding more and more workers onto smaller plots of land. The return to that was quickly used up by further population growth.

    This is what still happens with business owners today. If you can't get the staff, you are forced to automate processes that were previously done manually. That means higher productivity of those remaning employees you do have.
    The reason for the industrial revolution is still hotly debated. It’s a favourite topic in economic history, perhaps *the* favourite topic.

    But in contemporary economics, there is not a substantial school of thought that really questions the positive effect of immigration on economic growth, via greater demand + improved specialisation. There are also the effects of improved demographics given ageing Western societies.

    A bit like how contemporary economics leaned towards supporting the EMU, even when an actual assessment of the arguments showed it was a disastrous idea, as it has proved to be. The reason is that academic economics is dominated by the sort of people that choose to go into public-funded intellectual pursuit and value financial reward less. I.e. left wing people with the inherent biases associated with that... e.g. support for internationalism and diversity. This is also why mainstream economics typically pays no attention to cultural difference, even though it is clearly a driving factor of economics.

    As mentioned, repeatedly, immigration is a positive thing but the AVERAGES hide a lot. In other parts of economics, there is sensible thinking about the marginal unit of return. But this is never applied to the marginal migrant.
    OK, I see we’ve had enough of experts for today.

    That’s fine, the orthodoxy is not always right and as you say sometimes profoundly wrong. But don’t pretend you stand on a great body of evidence for your migration view of everything.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232
    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.
  • Options
    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022
    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    dixiedean said:

    Let's clear this one up.
    Are the Tories and their supporters in favour of higher wages or not?
    Because they give every impression of being hugely in favour in theory.
    But opposed to every "greedy and unaffordable" request for a pay rise in practice.

    Also striking is that the only 'mess with the market' policy a certain type of rightwinger seems to support is reducing immigration.

    Higher minimum wage, strong unions, redistributive tax&spend, this sort of thing, not so much.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    ON AVERAGE migrants were net givers. Jesus Christ, how hard is it for you to get this point?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    Heinously simplistic. Depends where the migrants come from

    Non EEA migrants are a major net cost to our fiscal position



    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    ON AVERAGE migrants were net givers. Jesus Christ, how hard is it for you to get this point?
    How else is one to examine British demography than ON AVERAGE.

    Your point seems to be that some immigrants are not net givers. So what? Is that supposed to be revelatory?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    Immigration is basically a fucking disaster
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories think the public is stupid, that is why they think trans rights is a big vote winner.

    They tried it in Australia, got pummelled

    In Australia Albanese neutered the issue by refusing to say trans men, certainly pre surgery, should have access to women only bathrooms despite pressure from the left to do so

    https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=guocx-ppypPSFlb3efAaSg&s=19
    This is already Labour policy lol
    Starmer has said he will allow men to self define their gender even without surgery

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11570689/Labour-war-Scotlands-new-law-changing-gender.html
    They cannot use single sex bathrooms, this is already Labour policy. You just changed the subject because I called you out for being wrong
    If you have self declared as a woman legally then legally too there is nothing to stop you using a female bathroom
    Bathrooms are not policed for gender or for sex. You don't show a GRC and you don't present genitalia.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories think the public is stupid, that is why they think trans rights is a big vote winner.

    They tried it in Australia, got pummelled

    In Australia Albanese neutered the issue by refusing to say trans men, certainly pre surgery, should have access to women only bathrooms despite pressure from the left to do so

    https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=guocx-ppypPSFlb3efAaSg&s=19
    This is already Labour policy lol
    Starmer has said he will allow men to self define their gender even without surgery

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11570689/Labour-war-Scotlands-new-law-changing-gender.html
    They cannot use single sex bathrooms, this is already Labour policy. You just changed the subject because I called you out for being wrong
    If you have self declared as a woman legally then legally too there is nothing to stop you using a female bathroom
    Bathrooms are not policed for gender or for sex. You don't show a GRC and you don't present genitalia.
    Not yet
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    Leon said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    Heinously simplistic. Depends where the migrants come from

    Non EEA migrants are a major net cost to our fiscal position



    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
    Thank goodness we closed the door to EEA migrants then.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    The treasury normally releases figures re immigration and taxes gained v costs as in benefits etc

    Generally EU citizens resulted in a net gain for the treasury and non EU citizens were a loss .

    So Leavers voted for more non EU immigration which is costing tax payers more money . And at the same time voted away their freedom of movement rights which means only those really wealthy can dream of retiring to 27 EU countries .

    The alleged vote against the elite was laughable !

    And the search for a Brexit benefit continues , perhaps Indiana Jones might find it hiding in the Ark of the Covenant!
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    ON AVERAGE migrants were net givers. Jesus Christ, how hard is it for you to get this point?
    How else is one to examine British demography than ON AVERAGE.

    Your point seems to be that some immigrants are not net givers. So what? Is that supposed to be revelatory?
    How else? The same way you do any analysis worth a damn in any field. You splice and dice the groups in different ways to see of your averages are missing things. This is what is needed for good decisions in business, in life, in government or anywhere else.

    So what that some immigrants are not net givers? So you change immigration policy to be as focused as possible on the net givers and filter out as many of the net takers. Which exist in vast numbers. i.e. you don't undertake policies as stupid as freedom of movement.
  • Options

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    ON AVERAGE migrants were net givers. Jesus Christ, how hard is it for you to get this point?
    How else is one to examine British demography than ON AVERAGE.

    Your point seems to be that some immigrants are not net givers. So what? Is that supposed to be revelatory?
    On average everyone who works is a net giver. Immigrant or native.

    The key to successful analysis is looking beyond the average. We need to encourage more of that which is most productive for us, while not necessarily that which is least. Competitive advantage some might call it.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories think the public is stupid, that is why they think trans rights is a big vote winner.

    They tried it in Australia, got pummelled

    In Australia Albanese neutered the issue by refusing to say trans men, certainly pre surgery, should have access to women only bathrooms despite pressure from the left to do so

    https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=guocx-ppypPSFlb3efAaSg&s=19
    This is already Labour policy lol
    Starmer has said he will allow men to self define their gender even without surgery

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11570689/Labour-war-Scotlands-new-law-changing-gender.html
    They cannot use single sex bathrooms, this is already Labour policy. You just changed the subject because I called you out for being wrong
    If you have self declared as a woman legally then legally too there is nothing to stop you using a female bathroom
    Bathrooms are not policed for gender or for sex. You don't show a GRC and you don't present genitalia.
    Not yet
    Or ever if we retain our marbles on this issue. Which despite some evidence to the contrary I believe we will end up doing.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    I find it simplest to think of Britain as two economies.

    The first, let’s call it London, makes money via financial services, at which it is a global leader. It is highly open to foreign investment and talent, and enjoys high productivity and very high wages. However it was severely dented in 2009 to the extent that it lost global market share, and living standards are badly affected by housing costs.

    The second, let’s call it not-London, no longer makes any money apart from government benefits. It used to have global-beating sectors, but they have withered away. No investment - either government or private - is available to encourage new growth.

    UK policy was to rely on Economy 1 and hope that Economy 2 would magically catch up. Economy 1 is now looking sick.

    The two economies need different and often contrary policy mixes.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    edited December 2022

    Leon said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    Heinously simplistic. Depends where the migrants come from

    Non EEA migrants are a major net cost to our fiscal position



    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
    Thank goodness we closed the door to EEA migrants then.
    I was a liberal Leaver. Stay in the EEA for ten years. Is what I wanted

    But I don’t blame Brits who voted for much less immigration overall (EEA and non EEA). That’s their right in a democracy. The shame belongs to the governments that have consistently failed to deliver this

    The next collision between politicians and people might make Brexit look trivial
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories think the public is stupid, that is why they think trans rights is a big vote winner.

    They tried it in Australia, got pummelled

    In Australia Albanese neutered the issue by refusing to say trans men, certainly pre surgery, should have access to women only bathrooms despite pressure from the left to do so

    https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=guocx-ppypPSFlb3efAaSg&s=19
    This is already Labour policy lol
    Starmer has said he will allow men to self define their gender even without surgery

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11570689/Labour-war-Scotlands-new-law-changing-gender.html
    They cannot use single sex bathrooms, this is already Labour policy. You just changed the subject because I called you out for being wrong
    If you have self declared as a woman legally then legally too there is nothing to stop you using a female bathroom
    Bathrooms are not policed for gender or for sex. You don't show a GRC and you don't present genitalia.
    Bathrooms are a red herring. More important situations are those such as organising an overnight school trip and ensuring you have sufficient male/female staff to supervise the sex-segregated teenagers, or the police conducting a strip search of a suspect who asks for their right to be searched by a member of the same sex to be respected.

    These are situations where you would expect the organisations to get this right, because there are potentially severe repercussions if they get it wrong.
  • Options

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    Of course there is. So as well as business services, you want to encourage pharmaceutical manufacturing and research, specialist aerospace, luxury goods, fashion, popular culture, culture-based tourism, off-shore wind farm technology, etc etc, and no doubt many more we can't name yet.

    For low-productivity sectors like fruit-picking and adult social care, there's a good case for using cheap migrant labour.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    Leon said:

    Immigration is basically a fucking disaster

    Not at all. It's an "experiment" that "we must pray" works out. You said so. Have you stopped praying?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557

    WillG said:

    The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.

    We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.

    More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.

    It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
    A moment that was interesting - a Labour supporting friend met my friend who was emigrating to Australia.

    The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
    Did everyone on the bus get up and cheer as well?
    It was fascinating to watch - the mantra of “high wages are bad” had reached a place I didn’t think they would go. Almost - “high wages are a sign of a racist immigration policy”.
    Yet our government is forcing though substantial real terms pay cuts in sectors with job vacancies. Its almost as if they don't believe in a high wage economy.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022
    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable for certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
  • Options

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    I find it simplest to think of Britain as two economies.

    The first, let’s call it London, makes money via financial services, at which it is a global leader. It is highly open to foreign investment and talent, and enjoys high productivity and very high wages. However it was severely dented in 2009 to the extent that it lost global market share, and living standards are badly affected by housing costs.

    The second, let’s call it not-London, no longer makes any money apart from government benefits. It used to have global-beating sectors, but they have withered away. No investment - either government or private - is available to encourage new growth.

    Economy 1 likely needs different policies than Economy 2.
    It is absurdly ridiculous to say non-London no longer makes money apart from government benefits. The sort of ridiculous nonsense this London-dominated site tends to exaggerate in.

    There are plenty of productive non-London firms all over the country, just as plenty of migrants can be productive - old EU15, EU12 and non-EU. And there are plenty of non-productive native people too, just as there are non-productive migrants.

    Anyone claiming something so broadbrush as "no longer makes any money apart from government benefits" is preposterous and you know it too.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    The UK is an apartment with too many people crowded in. If you’ve ever lived like that (I have) you know that in the end the place looks like a tip and life declines for everyone. And still the new tenants are coming up the stairs
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    The UK is an apartment with too many people crowded in. If you’ve ever lived like that (I have) you know that in the end the place looks like a tip and life declines for everyone. And still the new tenants are coming up the stairs
    The UK has plenty of undeveloped space to be used. Unfortunately most of the rooms in the apartment are closed off with nobody in them, because people in the rooms next to them like the view of an empty room more than they like their neighbours having somewhere to stay themselves.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    edited December 2022
    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232
    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    I find it simplest to think of Britain as two economies.

    The first, let’s call it London, makes money via financial services, at which it is a global leader. It is highly open to foreign investment and talent, and enjoys high productivity and very high wages. However it was severely dented in 2009 to the extent that it lost global market share, and living standards are badly affected by housing costs.

    The second, let’s call it not-London, no longer makes any money apart from government benefits. It used to have global-beating sectors, but they have withered away. No investment - either government or private - is available to encourage new growth.

    Economy 1 likely needs different policies than Economy 2.
    It is absurdly ridiculous to say non-London no longer makes money apart from government benefits. The sort of ridiculous nonsense this London-dominated site tends to exaggerate in.

    There are plenty of productive non-London firms all over the country, just as plenty of migrants can be productive - old EU15, EU12 and non-EU. And there are plenty of non-productive native people too, just as there are non-productive migrants.

    Anyone claiming something so broadbrush as "no longer makes any money apart from government benefits" is preposterous and you know it too.
    The intent was to simplify in order to show that a single policy mix is likely not appropriate.

    I would have thought you’d have appreciated extreme simplification.
  • Options



    The intent was to simplify in order to show that a single policy mix is likely not appropriate.

    I would have thought you’d have appreciated extreme simplification.

    I think we have a last-minute winner in the PB Cattiest Remark of 2022 competition.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    I find it simplest to think of Britain as two economies.

    The first, let’s call it London, makes money via financial services, at which it is a global leader. It is highly open to foreign investment and talent, and enjoys high productivity and very high wages. However it was severely dented in 2009 to the extent that it lost global market share, and living standards are badly affected by housing costs.

    The second, let’s call it not-London, no longer makes any money apart from government benefits. It used to have global-beating sectors, but they have withered away. No investment - either government or private - is available to encourage new growth.

    Economy 1 likely needs different policies than Economy 2.
    It is absurdly ridiculous to say non-London no longer makes money apart from government benefits. The sort of ridiculous nonsense this London-dominated site tends to exaggerate in.

    There are plenty of productive non-London firms all over the country, just as plenty of migrants can be productive - old EU15, EU12 and non-EU. And there are plenty of non-productive native people too, just as there are non-productive migrants.

    Anyone claiming something so broadbrush as "no longer makes any money apart from government benefits" is preposterous and you know it too.
    The intent was to simplify in order to show that a single policy mix is likely not appropriate.

    I would have thought you’d have appreciated extreme simplification.
    You are quite fond of moronic simplification yourself

    “migrants were and presumably still are net givers.”
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    Britain is too big to be dependent on financial services alone, and we have an unenviable record of abandoning sectors we used to be quite good at.

    There's a benefit to diversifying the economy, too.
    Of course there is. So as well as business services, you want to encourage pharmaceutical manufacturing and research, specialist aerospace, luxury goods, fashion, popular culture, culture-based tourism, off-shore wind farm technology, etc etc, and no doubt many more we can't name yet.

    For low-productivity sectors like fruit-picking and adult social care, there's a good case for using cheap migrant labour.
    I think using cheap migrant labour in that way is a fairly short-termist approach.

    Unless you purposefully keep some other countries poor, to provide cheap migrant labour, then your source of cheap labour will eventually disappear. Also, unless you encourage emigration to balance the immigration, it implies an infinitely growing population, which is impossible.

    From a theoretical point of view you're essentially giving up, for ever, on using technology to increase productivity in those sectors. I think that's foolhardy.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories think the public is stupid, that is why they think trans rights is a big vote winner.

    They tried it in Australia, got pummelled

    In Australia Albanese neutered the issue by refusing to say trans men, certainly pre surgery, should have access to women only bathrooms despite pressure from the left to do so

    https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=guocx-ppypPSFlb3efAaSg&s=19
    This is already Labour policy lol
    Starmer has said he will allow men to self define their gender even without surgery

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11570689/Labour-war-Scotlands-new-law-changing-gender.html
    They cannot use single sex bathrooms, this is already Labour policy. You just changed the subject because I called you out for being wrong
    If you have self declared as a woman legally then legally too there is nothing to stop you using a female bathroom
    Bathrooms are not policed for gender or for sex. You don't show a GRC and you don't present genitalia.
    Bathrooms are a red herring. More important situations are those such as organising an overnight school trip and ensuring you have sufficient male/female staff to supervise the sex-segregated teenagers, or the police conducting a strip search of a suspect who asks for their right to be searched by a member of the same sex to be respected.

    These are situations where you would expect the organisations to get this right, because there are potentially severe repercussions if they get it wrong.
    They are, yes. It surprises me how often they get mentioned.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557
    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    Yet when workers push for higher pay, our government says they cannot have it, and if they don't like it should move to another job, even when that sector has masses of vacancies.

    It seems only in the financial sector are massive bonuses needed to keep people motivated. The peasants can just suck it up.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
  • Options

    I think using cheap migrant labour in that way is a fairly short-termist approach.

    Unless you purposefully keep some other countries poor, to provide cheap migrant labour, then your source of cheap labour will eventually disappear. Also, unless you encourage emigration to balance the immigration, it implies an infinitely growing population, which is impossible.

    From a theoretical point of view you're essentially giving up, for ever, on using technology to increase productivity in those sectors. I think that's foolhardy.

    Well, you are waiting for the technology to be available, and in the case of some sectors like personal care it might be quite a long wait. Bear in mind also that the migrant labour we used to benefit from for fruit-picking etc was largely seasonal: a win-win for both sides.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,730

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable for certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
    Whenever you are asked to provide evidence you just say "it's well attested". So you're not exactly one to talk.
  • Options

    There’s apparently a comment up thread from OGH where he says he is going into hospital for a spinal operation shortly. I sincerely hope he recovers more quickly than I have; more like my lumber one, a couple of years ago, where I was out and on my feet within hours.
    As opposed to my recent cervical one where I have not yet recovered the use of my hands, let alone legs!

    OKC, glad to see you back here posting! Even IF you insist on impersonating Oklahoma City (aka OKC)!!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Indeed. And @Gardenwalker has, as far as I can see, provided no hard evidence at all. Just the banal assertion “migrants are net givers”
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,572
    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    No they don't. That logic would say that in an ideal world, we would click Delete on the people who take more taxes than they contribute. Of course that's a very large majority of people.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165
    On topic, this goes to show what a mistake the Tories made getting rid of Truss. It’s a racing certainty she’s back before Easter.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    We are still waiting for you to adduce a scintilla of evidence to support your insipid commentary
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,572
    edited December 2022
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Childbirth is also reducing the per capita growth rate and causing low productivity. The Herod approach would raise GDP per capita at a stroke. (Less trivially: this pattern is exactly what we would expect to see in an aging society.)

    Specific per-worker productivity is what matters, if it even matters at all. Plenty of low-productivity activities make people happy even if they don't generate a lot of tax take or income, like cafés and restaurants.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Indeed. And @Gardenwalker has, as far as I can see, provided no hard evidence at all. Just the banal assertion “migrants are net givers”
    Ah don't worry, he's got economic theorists and liberal immigration loving academics who have all written papers about it. The numbers can be safely ignored, reinterpreted or "unskewed" to borrow a phrase from polling to make it say whatever those liberal academics want it to say. But numbers are numbers and they don't lie, the per capita growth rate is half of the nominal growth rate, that means immigrants are contributing less than people born here.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,060
    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,563
    edited December 2022
    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Indeed. And @Gardenwalker has, as far as I can see, provided no hard evidence at all. Just the banal assertion “migrants are net givers”
    Ah don't worry, he's got economic theorists and liberal immigration loving academics who have all written papers about it. The numbers can be safely ignored, reinterpreted or "unskewed" to borrow a phrase from polling to make it say whatever those liberal academics want it to say. But numbers are numbers and they don't lie, the per capita growth rate is half of the nominal growth rate, that means immigrants are contributing less than people born here.
    Yes. In the end it is that simple. All else is guff

    By the by, this is not in itself a slam dunk argument against migration. There are plenty of reasons you might support mass migration anyway: keeping the country younger, keeping it “vibrant”, paying a theoretical British debt to the world. Etc. But the numbers are the numbers
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,232

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Short of major institutional failure, the labour market will always clear, and head down to the frictional rate of unemployment.

    But where the problem from automation comes in is the price (i.e. real wage) needed for the employment market to clear. That has already eroded at the lower end. And the threshold of skill level needed for people to improve their lives is creeping up. We need major policy action in education and retraining to stay ahead of this. And we make the problem much bigger the more low skill people we have.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,113
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    We are still waiting for you to adduce a scintilla of evidence to support your insipid commentary
    Because you invariably do?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,060
    edited December 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Indeed. And @Gardenwalker has, as far as I can see, provided no hard evidence at all. Just the banal assertion “migrants are net givers”
    Ah don't worry, he's got economic theorists and liberal immigration loving academics who have all written papers about it. The numbers can be safely ignored, reinterpreted or "unskewed" to borrow a phrase from polling to make it say whatever those liberal academics want it to say. But numbers are numbers and they don't lie, the per capita growth rate is half of the nominal growth rate, that means immigrants are contributing less than people born here.
    "Immigrants contribute less than people born here" is not a slam dunk inference from those GDP numbers.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    DougSeal said:

    On topic, this goes to show what a mistake the Tories made getting rid of Truss. It’s a racing certainty she’s back before Easter.

    No it doesn't Truss reached 14% with People Polling, 5% lower than even Sunak's 19% yesterday.

    On average Sunak's Tories are now on 25 to 30% while under Truss they were on 20 to 25%
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,113
    It is becoming easier to imagine having to eat leftover turkey dinner every single day….
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557
    IanB2 said:

    It is becoming easier to imagine having to eat leftover turkey dinner every single day….

    Finishing mine tonight, along with leftover ham in a turkey and ham pie.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,113

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.
    Recorded vote?
  • Options
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    The UK is an apartment with too many people crowded in. If you’ve ever lived like that (I have) you know that in the end the place looks like a tip and life declines for everyone. And still the new tenants are coming up the stairs
    And the people moaning about the overcrowded state of the first 2 floors of the house are simultaneously bellowing about how no one wants to go to the terrible top floor. Just devolve the power to build an outside staircase to said top floor to its inhabitants and that might partially alleviate your perceived problem.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,060
    edited December 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geofenced schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)

    edit: changed geolocated to geofenced.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    Can't come soon enough to save rural pubs.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,394
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    Indeed. And @Gardenwalker has, as far as I can see, provided no hard evidence at all. Just the banal assertion “migrants are net givers”
    They must be, we are continually told they save the NHS or the economy. Must be true.

    Remember these ads

    https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/latest/2015/5/555c865c9/campaign-difference-british-billboards-celebrating-migrants-refugees.html
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geolocated schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)
    Yes, aren't they just glorified trams?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    Self driving is like speech recognition. It's easy to get 99% of the way there, but the last 1% is fiendishly hard.

    Waymo's vehicles are sensor machine, are created by a money-no-object organization, and have remote drivers sitting in a warehouse ready to take over the moment there is a problem.

    And despite this, are stuck in a small part of metro Phoenix.

    Yep, they'll get there, but they are doing 99.9% fewer trips than their forecasts from just a few years ago.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geolocated schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)
    Yes, aren't they just glorified trams?
    No

    “On my ride home I saw more driverless cars than regular ones”

    https://twitter.com/pizzadj/status/1608358035373838340?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “The number of lives driverless cars will save is mindblowing. This is awesome.”

    https://twitter.com/kazanjy/status/1605430636218458112?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “Driverless cars or autonomous vehicles will be in use everywhere within the next six years. (World Economic Forum) #AV #AutoIndustry”

    https://twitter.com/jamesvgingerich/status/1607983056505212928?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    But you have no causation.
    Didn’t you learn that in high school?

    I assume most PBers, being geeky and mathy, are familiar with the concept.

    Saying the “numbers don’t lie” and ranting about liberal social scientists make you sound like a complete berk.

  • Options

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    If the UK successfully invaded France tomorrow and declared it part of the UK, per capita GDP would fall slightly while nominal GDP would jump. Does that prove wars are bad ?

    If Scotland becomes independent, per capita GDP will rise while nominal GDP will fall. Does that prove Scottish independence is good for England ?

    It's just gibberish.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    On topic, this goes to show what a mistake the Tories made getting rid of Truss. It’s a racing certainty she’s back before Easter.

    No it doesn't Truss reached 14% with People Polling, 5% lower than even Sunak's 19% yesterday.

    On average Sunak's Tories are now on 25 to 30% while under Truss they were on 20 to 25%
    If they had only let her stay you would be enjoying treble digit leads by now.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,631
    Skills versus character: If we were just looking at skills and wealth, Osama bin Laden would look like a great immigrant.

    Economists tend to ignore character when discussing immigration -- which may be natural for people in that field -- but it is stll a serious error.
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    I am quite sure it is not possible to be a centrist and at the same time be a racist Anglophobe bigot such as yourself. Centrists do not engage in racist hatred, whether for the English or anyone else.

    I very much hope that you (and some of the other frothing Nat bigots who post on here) are not representative of the rest of the Scottish people, any more than the far right and far left are representative of that very diverse group of people that you hold such hatred for, collectively known as the English.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,060
    edited December 2022

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geolocated schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)
    Yes, aren't they just glorified trams?
    No, far, far from. But to be safe, they require a level of 'knowledge' of the area they are in far greater than (say) Google Streetview.

    As ever with such things, you need to look beyond the one-dimensional hype and press releases that Leon often so loves. Waymo have spent over $3 billion on their autonomous cars, and Leon is pumping his keg to the fact a few cars are going around some very limited areas.

    As another example, in 2016 Musk promised an autonomous coast-to-cast drive by a Tesla car in 2017. It has yet to happen.
  • Options

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    If the UK successfully invaded France tomorrow and declared it part of the UK, per capita GDP would fall slightly while nominal GDP would jump. Does that prove wars are bad ?

    If Scotland becomes independent, per capita GDP will rise while nominal GDP will fall. Does that prove Scottish independence is good for England ?

    It's just gibberish.
    Although I've replied to you, FAOD I'm agreeing with you !
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    But you have no causation.
    Didn’t you learn that in high school?

    I assume most PBers, being geeky and mathy, are familiar with the concept.

    Saying the “numbers don’t lie” and ranting about liberal social scientists make you sound like a complete berk.

    And, again, you provide zero evidence. No numbers. Nothing. Unlike those you argue with

    Please give us a citation for your claim “migrants are net givers”
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    But you have no causation.
    Didn’t you learn that in high school?

    I assume most PBers, being geeky and mathy, are familiar with the concept.

    Saying the “numbers don’t lie” and ranting about liberal social scientists make you sound like a complete berk.

    Aww, you rattled? You've still provided absolutely zero evidence in favour of what you're saying. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. You haven't done that. Evidence please, or I think a period of silence from you about this subject is due because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited December 2022
    I'm actually not generally in favour of politicians being required to release tax returns and the like, although in the context of the political culture it was a pretty standard thing to expect and the witholding deeply suspicious, but this just seems like a really weird threat to make - how would his information make things more horrible for others, even if he tries lashing out?

    Responding to Friday's release of hundreds of pages of tax returns, Mr Trump's camp warned that the disclosure will lead to the US political divide becoming "far worse".

    "The Democrats should have never done it, the Supreme Court should have never approved it, and it's going to lead to horrible things for so many people," his statement said


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64122250

    His finances do in general appear to be dodgy as f*ck (and made so complicated as to make it harder for him to keep track of, which like all such arrangements seems to me to have litte reasoning besides being dodgy), but that's true of a lot of legal finances too of course.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,106
    edited December 2022
    I’m at work, and my phone just died. I’m on another phone.
    But as far as I know, the following things are relatively uncontroversial:

    Immigration doesn’t suppress native wages.
    Immigration improves productivity growth via increased aggregate demand and better skill sorting.
    EU migration tended to higher skills than the level of the native population.
    EU migrants were on average fiscal net contributors.

    I don’t deny you can cut the data down and find specific groups or places or whatever.

    But it is worth recalling too that almost wealthy countries have experienced high migration in recent years, yet Britain’s stagnation is exceptional. Also, several economies - like Switzerland - have built economic models on even higher migration.

    Portes, who I personally find annoying, and is undoubtedly a “liberal”, albeit weirdly Brexity, seems pretty balanced and comprehensive here:

    https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-evidence-economics-immigration-uk
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,394
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    But you have no causation.
    Didn’t you learn that in high school?

    I assume most PBers, being geeky and mathy, are familiar with the concept.

    Saying the “numbers don’t lie” and ranting about liberal social scientists make you sound like a complete berk.

    Aww, you rattled? You've still provided absolutely zero evidence in favour of what you're saying. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. You haven't done that. Evidence please, or I think a period of silence from you about this subject is due because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
    It’s an interesting debate however he’s not being condescending towards you. Why do you need to be condescending towards him ?
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    That's like the "Pirates prevent global warming" fallacy. Strip out dependency ratio and people choosing to work fewer hours and you might be onto something.

    Did you get your lessons in statistics in Epping?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    Centrists do not engage in racist hatred
    Just as an aside comment, I think that is unlikely to be true, anymore than all those famous 'anti-racists' who people on the left insisted could not have done racist things because they are anti-racists.

    Racism would not seem to make much sense to the kind moderate, middle of the spectrum views I would expect of centrists, but there are bound to be at least some people of impeccable centrist opinions who also happen to be incredibly stupid and thus racist.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    Self driving is like speech recognition. It's easy to get 99% of the way there, but the last 1% is fiendishly hard.

    Waymo's vehicles are sensor machine, are created by a money-no-object organization, and have remote drivers sitting in a warehouse ready to take over the moment there is a problem.

    And despite this, are stuck in a small part of metro Phoenix.

    Yep, they'll get there, but they are doing 99.9% fewer trips than their forecasts from just a few years ago.

    I’m not arguing that. All true. I’m just pointing out that driverless cars are now a fact in some American and Chinese cities, and elsewhere

    They remind me of accounts of the very first original cars. They had people walking in front of them carrying flags to warn pedestrians, and make sure the cars didn’t go over 6mph or whatever

    Driverless cars are at that stage. The flag guy is the remote driver. The cars are weird enough to attract attention and some primitive, grunting hostility from the low-watt likes of @JosiasJessop. That will change
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    At least in the British context, migrants were and presumably still are net givers.

    So you’re railing against a hypothetical of your own construct.
    No they aren't, the UK has seen a drop in GDP per capita because of immigration. Immigration has resulted in lower overall living standards. That is undeniable.
    It’s only undeniable by certain posters on here, which you have sadly joined.
    No, it's just numbers. UK GDP per capita has grown at significantly slower rate than overall GDP. Economic theory is almost certainly bullshit and anyone calling themselves an expert in it should be ignored because it isn't a science.
    We’ve had this before.

    At the end of the day, either put up evidence, or accept that what you are saying is just another opinion. We can then decide whether to take your beliefs on face value or not.
    Per capita GDP 2004 - $40k, 2021 - $47k - 17.5% growth
    Nominal GDP 2004 - $2.4tn, 2021 - $3.2tn - 33% growth

    Immigration is halving the per capita growth rate and the ultimate source of low productivity in the UK economy.
    All you are saying is that per capita GDP has slowed down. That’s pretty well attested and discussed on here pretty much every day.

    The contribution of immigration is your own inference.

    You may as well say that smartphones, or Uber, or the career of Dua Lipa has caused GDP per capita slowdown.
    Per capita GDP 1990 - $19k, 2004 - $40k - 110% growth
    Nominal GDP 1990 - $1.1tn, 2004 - $2.4tn - 118% growth

    Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
    It’s Max’s “Dua Lipa” theory of growth.
    Laughable.

    GDP per capita has declined.
    Tell us something we don’t know?

    Before mass immigration GDP per capita growth broadly in line with nominal growth, after mass immigration GDP per capita half the rate of nominal growth. You need to turn off the computer for the weekend because it's just embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.
    But you have no causation.
    Didn’t you learn that in high school?

    I assume most PBers, being geeky and mathy, are familiar with the concept.

    Saying the “numbers don’t lie” and ranting about liberal social scientists make you sound like a complete berk.

    Aww, you rattled? You've still provided absolutely zero evidence in favour of what you're saying. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. You haven't done that. Evidence please, or I think a period of silence from you about this subject is due because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
    Is there really any hard evidence (except by the right wing versions of those economic theorists that you say should be ignored) that net immigration is a bad thing? A huge number of people in this country have immigrant ancestry in the last couple of generations. Mine is Irish, how about yours? The reality is that the immigration debate is far more complicated than most people who want to take a position want to admit that it is.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751

    I’m at work, and my phone just died. I’m on another phone.
    But as far as I know, the following things are relatively uncontroversial:

    Immigration doesn’t suppress native wages.
    Immigration improves productivity growth via increased aggregate demand and better skill sorting.
    EU migration tended to higher skills than the level of the native population.
    EU migrants were on average fiscal net contributors.

    I don’t deny you can cut the data down and find specific groups or places or whatever.

    But it is worth recalling too that almost wealthy countries have experienced high migration in recent years, yet Britain’s stagnation is exceptional. Also, several economies - like Switzerland - have built economic models on even higher migration.

    Portes, who I personally find annoying, and is undoubtedly a “liberal”, albeit weirdly Brexity, seems pretty balanced and comprehensive here:

    https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-evidence-economics-immigration-uk

    That's all completely evidence free assertion though. What are the actual numbers to back that up? In actual dollars what is the per migrant net contribution to the economy and tax?
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,563
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
    Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    Centrists do not engage in racist hatred
    Just as an aside comment, I think that is unlikely to be true, anymore than all those famous 'anti-racists' who people on the left insisted could not have done racist things because they are anti-racists.

    Racism would not seem to make much sense to the kind moderate, middle of the spectrum views I would expect of centrists, but there are bound to be at least some people of impeccable centrist opinions who also happen to be incredibly stupid and thus racist.

    Racism in the modern world is an intrinsically extremist position. @StuartDickson makes little attempt to cover his hatred for "the English" and is ergo an extremist, not a centrist, whatever his other views may be.
This discussion has been closed.