|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 14:53:39 GMT
Immigration is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, it is also a complex issue and I'm always wary of people selling simple solutions to complex problems. Of course it is serious but it is not complex, the solutions are easily found but like all solutions they have different consequences. What is clear that maintaining growth through mass immigration is a winner for some aspects of the economy but a distinct loser for environment and society. If we wish to protect the environment and society then immigration has to be controlled very strictly, something we have been promised democratically for years and voted for democratically for years. We need delivery or is it deliverance. If the consequences from the solutions are serious enough then they aren't really solutions. Changing the economic landscape of the country isn't simple. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 15:12:06 GMT
Immigration is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, it is also a complex issue and I'm always wary of people selling simple solutions to complex problems. Of course it is serious but it is not complex, the solutions are easily found but like all solutions they have different consequences. What is clear that maintaining growth through mass immigration is a winner for some aspects of the economy but a distinct loser for environment and society. If we wish to protect the environment and society then immigration has to be controlled very strictly, something we have been promised democratically for years and voted for democratically for years. We need delivery or is it deliverance. This. All I've ever wanted on this subject is for those in favour of cutting immigration recognise there is a cost to doing it as well as a gain. Well said Sandy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 15:15:22 GMT
Are you able to identify those costs for those of us who are sceptical about the benefits?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 15:21:49 GMT
Are you able to identify those costs for those of us who are sceptical about the benefits? I have already given an idea, which you haven't commented on. But in basic terms we have not become more productive per person for a very long time, so all growth in GDP is just growth in population size. I explained how it works, you have ignored, I can do no more. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 15:25:05 GMT
How is that a cost of cutting or eliminating immigration?
The fact that GDP is a very poor metric for national wealth or wellbeing has been obvious for a very long time. I may even have remarked on that myself occasionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 16:04:24 GMT
How is that a cost of cutting or eliminating immigration? The fact that GDP is a very poor metric for national wealth or wellbeing has been obvious for a very long time. I may even have remarked on that myself occasionally. I already explained over several posts, I'm not going to do it again so you can ignore it again. Here I found and copied it for you. The principle is as simple as it seems. You need some quick money so you take a payday loan. Short term problem solved, long term bad idea. You need more money to run the government but the public like lower taxes and wont elect me if I raise them. So I invite 700,000 people to come here and earn money and pay tax. I know that within a few years the infrastructure needed for those people will overtake their contributions (Or at the very least negate them) but I'm interested in keeping tax down this year. I know that they will put the health service under extreme pressure, I know this will make working their unpleasant and drive up wages in order to fill posts. I know all this stuff but the public tell me they want the new and better services NOW but don't want to pay for them. So I cheat. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 16:23:11 GMT
I didn't ignore it. I just considered it an unproven thesis based on dubious assumptions and lacking any numerical support. When I challenged the 700,000 number you replied it was just a figure in your head, indicating that the rest of the thesis is just as ephemeral.
As a long-term sceptic about the benefits of mass immigration I was interested in your remark about cutting immigration incurring costs as well as gain but nothing you have written before or since helps me identify what those costs might be.
I have often posed the following question as a thought experiment: If all the postwar migrants and their offspring were to be magically trans-levitated back to their ancestral homelands overnight, what would we miss?
Answering that question would reveal what if any costs are likely to ensue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 27, 2023 16:30:54 GMT
Are you able to identify those costs for those of us who are sceptical about the benefits? I have already given an idea, which you haven't commented on.
But in basic terms we have not become more productive per person for a very long time, so all growth in GDP is just growth in population size. Perhaps its mass immigration that is causing that problem? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 16:34:47 GMT
I didn't ignore it. I just considered it an unproven thesis based on dubious assumptions and lacking any numerical support. When I challenged the 700,000 number you replied it was just a figure in your head, indicating that the rest of the thesis is just as ephemeral. As a long-term sceptic about the benefits of mass immigration I was interested in your remark about cutting immigration incurring costs as well as gain but nothing you have written before or since helps me identify what those costs might be. I have often posed the following question as a thought experiment: If all the postwar migrants and their offspring were to be magically trans-levitated back to their ancestral homelands overnight, what would we miss? Answering that question would reveal what if any costs are likely to ensue. Well for starters there's a huge loss of personnel to an already overstretched NHS and a huge loss in tax income. However as the son of one of the postwar immigrants you mention, my question to you is why would you want this? Like millions of others I've worked my whole adult life, paid taxes, never claimed a penny in unemployment benefit, not so much as a hint of trouble with the law and done my best to be a good citizen. Why, because of an accident of birth, should I keep having to justify my right to live in my own country? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 16:47:40 GMT
Offset by a huge reduction in demand for NHS care as well as for all public services from education to social housing to policing.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 16:53:04 GMT
Offset by a huge reduction in demand for NHS care as well as for all public services from education to social housing to policing. I believe one in 5 of NHS staff are immigrants, when you add on those of immigrant extraction it raises higher still. You would still need to maintain infrastructure of public services. I notice you didn't answer my question. Why should an accident of birth mean I have to justify my right to live in my own country but you don't? If you and any offspring you may have disappeared tomorrow, what would the rest of us miss? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 16:56:02 GMT
Of course it is serious but it is not complex, the solutions are easily found but like all solutions they have different consequences. What is clear that maintaining growth through mass immigration is a winner for some aspects of the economy but a distinct loser for environment and society. If we wish to protect the environment and society then immigration has to be controlled very strictly, something we have been promised democratically for years and voted for democratically for years. We need delivery or is it deliverance. This. All I've ever wanted on this subject is for those in favour of cutting immigration recognise there is a cost to doing it as well as a gain. Well said Sandy. I do not think anyone has said it is a dawdle as immigration has advantages and disadvantages. I think we are well past the point when it is an advantage to the bulk of the populace (at least 25 years). It is a balance and the tipping point was reached a long time ago yet it has increased 10 fold and at least increased at that level from a promised level. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 27, 2023 16:59:01 GMT
If maintaining growth (in GDP, presumably) is the most important criterion then surely the optimal result will come from an open borders situation where as many foreigners who are able to make the journey are freely admitted. Even if most of them are unemployable the interest on the loans that the government will need to take out for their care and sustenance will be treated as government expenditure and counted as part of GDP. I know we are just brainstorming here, but they could also just empty the prisons. With the right reform, we could have an economic miracle in no time |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 17:01:35 GMT
happyhornet : I don't wish to be unkind but I do believe that the interest of those of indigenous ancestry trumps that of those of recent provenance, including the natural right of tenure. You will almost certainly find a very similar opinion prevails in whichever country your family hailed from originally. I don't have exact current figures for NHS employment but would not be surprised to find that it is around the same as the proportion of the population of post-war migration background. In other areas of public service, education for example, the numbers of migration background taking advantage of the service far exceeds the numbers employed therein, meaning that particular service will be severely overstaffed should those of migrant stock go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 17:05:57 GMT
I don't wish to be unkind but I do believe that the interest of those of indigenous ancestry trumps that of those of recent provenance, including the natural right of tenure. You will almost certainly find a very similar opinion prevails in whichever country your family hailed from originally. I don't have exact current figures for NHS employment but would not be surprised to find that it is around the same as the proportion of the population of post-war migration background. In other areas of public service, education for example, the numbers of migration background taking advantage of the service far exceeds the numbers employed therein. So it's based purely on an accident of birth? You've singled out a specific demographic group for special treatment and asked them to justify themselves in a way that you don't ask anyone else to. Indeed you have not even attempted to justify you and your family's presence her in the way you do for me and mine. Tell me, what would be the moral difference in asking say, disabled people, to justify themselves in the same way? |
|
