I'd say Brexit is more like dropping out of university to pursue some ill-conceived project than having kids (having done both). While dropping out offers the opportunity of making a fortune by freeing up time to follow your dream, the reality is that you'll most likely end up permanently poorer than your studious peers. Life goes on though.
But you will have "taken back control"
Can't put a price on that...
It also bollocks. Most plumbers/electricians/brickies make more than most graduates. If you want to make money at the moment and are not in the lucky top 1-2% that will get a job in the professions, you have much more chance of making it in the trades. A friend of mine is pulling in 500 quid a day fitting boilers at the moment, and he started earning before he was 20 unlike any graduate.
According to government statistics, graduates and postgraduates continue to have higher employment rates and are more likely to work in high-skilled jobs than non-graduates.
Full-time employed, working-age graduates will earn an average of £31,000 this year, the government says, compared to £22,100 for non-graduates.
Anyway, I thought tradesmen's wages had fallen through the floor as a result of competition from uncontrolled immigration? Or am I reading the wrong paper?
I am irresistibly reminded of my Sir Humphrey:
'They are government statis...they are facts.'
To be withered by Hacker with;
'How is it that your statistics are facts and my facts are only statistics?'
The reality is we have very little idea at the moment of how much more a degree of any sort is worth now than a non-graduate career, because it will take at least 10-15 years for the new loan structure to play out and see what the impact is.
Yes, when you read 'the government says', you should start counting the spoons quickly.
On a slightly more serious note, we do have a real problem now with numbers like this being bandied around and passed off as fact without any attempt to examine their provenance.
If you do examine it, you often find the numbers are misleadingly cherry-picked from academic studies which are often out of date as well.
There were several good examples of this in the Brexit campaign with REMAIN quoting supposed facts that were anything but - the 3 million jobs one being only the most egregious example. Many of the Treasury's various claims about trade, border costs etc. were similarly misleading.
Meanwhile back in reality, betfair reckons Smith has about 8% chance. Seems more like it. But you never know, maybe the cultists will be so busy abusing people on twitter and making threatening phone calls that they'll forget to actually vote.
The interesting bit will be how many votes Smith gets as a loser. I am hoping it will be around 150,000, which is not a bad base from which to build.
The other interesting bit will be how many of those 150,000 walk away from Labour before 2020. Will returnees like your good self stick around?
This is probably where I part company from my fellow Brexiteers . If you just close your eyes and swallow the bitter pill, its fine. 4% after 14 years is essentially noise. It's not really worth arguing about. The NIESR estimates are EEA ~ 1.8, FTA (e.g. CETA) ~2.1 or WTO ~3.2. Just say that it'll be a shortfall of 2-4% and leave it at that.
4% sounds like a large number (and it is! ~ £72 billion if applied to today's economy), but in the round, it's nothing. A small change in inflation has larger impacts. The issue is that the shortfall is going to be front-loaded.
------------------------------------------
If 4% of GDP is nothing, then £350m / week is less than nothing.
--------------------------------------------
You can refer to posts I made before and after EUref that anyone basing their decision on a figure that (even @ gross) is less than 1% of GDP, or 2.2% of public spending, is an idiot.
-----------------------------------------
This is just another example of the flawed and skewed analysis we saw before the referendum I'm afraid. Now it's being deployed to big up the REMAIN fall back position of continued EEA membership (with the hope this will be collapsed into Associate EU membership in due course).
The EU themselves only claim the single market has added 2% to EU GDP - a claim which is questionable on methodological grounds.
With the UK trading considerably less with the EU than average across the EU countries, even using the EU analysis you would struggle to get a long-term'benefit' to the UK of more than 1.5% of GDP.
Moreover, the UK has neither a) become more integrated with the EU economically since the single market began or b) shown evidence of faster productivity growth. So where does this gain come from?
But of course you can always find a methodology that will give you big negative numbers if you look hard enough.
There is a case for EEA membership to continue, as a transitional measure, but it's about minimising disruption not ludicrously inflated claims for gains in GDP from the single market.
Meanwhile back in reality, betfair reckons Smith has about 8% chance. Seems more like it. But you never know, maybe the cultists will be so busy abusing people on twitter and making threatening phone calls that they'll forget to actually vote.
The interesting bit will be how many votes Smith gets as a loser. I am hoping it will be around 150,000, which is not a bad base from which to build.
The other interesting bit will be how many of those 150,000 walk away from Labour before 2020. Will returnees like your good self stick around?
I'll stick around until it's clear all hope is gone. We'll know that once we see what happens after Labour gets hammered at the next GE. I feel I owe that to those in my family who have gone before. I know that's sentimental horseshit, but I am of a certain age where that kind of thing has become important to me. I suspect quite a few will walk after 24th September, though.
What type of shark? Greenland Shark generally potters around at 0.3 metres per second. The Shortfin Mako can chase prey at bursts of over 26 metres per second.
It's important which shark the interviewed were considering, because the 50m freestyle world record is 0.4648 metres per second, some 54.9% faster than a Greenland shark, for any of the interviewees who bothered to use Google....
18-24 - 14% think there will be a person who can swim faster than a shark.
Who says our education system is improving?
Well, it doesn't give a cutoff date so, with evolution, maybe sharks get slower and humans get quicker sometime in the far, distant future. A silly question, of course, but it does show that younger people are more likely to look well beyond their lifespans for an answer and are less likely to give an automatic negative.
18-24 - 14% think there will be a person who can swim faster than a shark.
Who says our education system is improving?
Well, it doesn't give a cutoff date so, with evolution, maybe sharks get slower and humans get quicker sometime in the far, distant future. A silly question, of course, but it does show that younger people are more likely to look well beyond their lifespans for an answer and are less likely to give an automatic negative.
Or that they're willing to answer a silly question with a silly answer.
@LOS_Fisher: Fascinating: GMB has endorsed Owen Smith, Press Association believes. Full results of internal union ballot revealed later this afternoon.
Just interested to know what people think of this. They reveal the exit poll on the BBC exactly at 10pm but people who are still in line to vote can still vote if they have a raffel ticket after ten so in theory people who are in line with a smartphone can see this exit poll and then go to vote having already known the likely result. That is unfair as that will affect their vote. It won't effect that many votes but could in future say if there were problems early in the day in key seats.
The amount of people still in line at 10pm is probably negligible. The amount of people still in line at 10pm who will change their vote based on what an exit poll says is smaller still.
Comments
On a slightly more serious note, we do have a real problem now with numbers like this being bandied around and passed off as fact without any attempt to examine their provenance.
If you do examine it, you often find the numbers are misleadingly cherry-picked from academic studies which are often out of date as well.
There were several good examples of this in the Brexit campaign with REMAIN quoting supposed facts that were anything but - the 3 million jobs one being only the most egregious example. Many of the Treasury's various claims about trade, border costs etc. were similarly misleading.
How enthusiastic are swing voters for a candidate like Hillary, really. Will they turn out for her? Nope.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/9om1hl3w4s/InternalResults_160809_SharkChild.pdf
This is probably where I part company from my fellow Brexiteers
4% sounds like a large number (and it is! ~ £72 billion if applied to today's economy), but in the round, it's nothing. A small change in inflation has larger impacts. The issue is that the shortfall is going to be front-loaded.
------------------------------------------
If 4% of GDP is nothing, then £350m / week is less than nothing.
--------------------------------------------
You can refer to posts I made before and after EUref that anyone basing their decision on a figure that (even @ gross) is less than 1% of GDP, or 2.2% of public spending, is an idiot.
-----------------------------------------
This is just another example of the flawed and skewed analysis we saw before the referendum I'm afraid. Now it's being deployed to big up the REMAIN fall back position of continued EEA membership (with the hope this will be collapsed into Associate EU membership in due course).
The EU themselves only claim the single market has added 2% to EU GDP - a claim which is questionable on methodological grounds.
With the UK trading considerably less with the EU than average across the EU countries, even using the EU analysis you would struggle to get a long-term'benefit' to the UK of more than 1.5% of GDP.
Moreover, the UK has neither a) become more integrated with the EU economically since the single market began or b) shown evidence of faster productivity growth. So where does this gain come from?
But of course you can always find a methodology that will give you big negative numbers if you look hard enough.
There is a case for EEA membership to continue, as a transitional measure, but it's about minimising disruption not ludicrously inflated claims for gains in GDP from the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQxAicDlTJs
Owen Smith source says private polling shows Corbyn on less than 50% for the first time with "a lot of don't knows".
Could be spin, could also be true - Corbyn 49%, Don't Know 40%, Owen Smith 11% ?
Owen Smith 3rd in a two horse race sounds about right...
Who says our education system is improving?
Jack- do you think there was a GOP candidate that could have won?
It's important which shark the interviewed were considering, because the 50m freestyle world record is 0.4648 metres per second, some 54.9% faster than a Greenland shark, for any of the interviewees who bothered to use Google....
1. Demographic trends in swing states.
2. Picking a viable candidate acceptable to the base and acceptable to swing/independent voters.
The first is unstoppable, the second desperately difficult.
Of the 2016 contenders Kasich was the best option but lacked base support although acceptable to the voter. There is the GOP writ large.