|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 15, 2022 17:40:46 GMT
No that is wrong - the most comprehensive study was done by the House of Lords who found that immigration had no impact on per-capita GDP. The HoL's recommendation to use GDP per capita is useless in this case since their recommended method (of using GDP per capita) deals with overall migration while what we've been discussing is the EE migrants' contribution to the whole economy or overall GDP. Unless, of course, the HoL study includes segmented analyses. Most of the immigration in the time scale the Lords were investigating were from the EU - if EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street what is the point of it?. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 19:37:26 GMT
The HoL's recommendation to use GDP per capita is useless in this case since their recommended method (of using GDP per capita) deals with overall migration while what we've been discussing is the EE migrants' contribution to the whole economy or overall GDP. Unless, of course, the HoL study includes segmented analyses. Most of the immigration in the time scale the Lords were investigating were from the EU - if EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street what is the point of it?. Your question is based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 15, 2022 21:25:37 GMT
Well lower wages are negligible unless you are one of those who are being affected by lower wages. I's say access to education has a great deal to do with social cohesion - if migrants are preventing UK citizens from getting the education they desire for their children then those migrants are not going to be welcome. Immigration does not add anything to the overall economy - per-capita GDP is not affected by migration. Your claim does not alter the fact that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. What it does is encourage people to play the "let's blame the EEs" game. If local parents manage to beat other local parents to school places of their choice, then there will be animosity between two groups of parents. There is no research or study that concludes that EE migrants do not add anything to the overall economy. All studies and researches conclude otherwise. They are net contributors to the national economy. Anecdotally, the volume and the amount of economic activity they generate in retail and private rental sectors alone is enough to tell you about the positive contribution to the economy migrants make. Not quite. The little evidence there is indicates that the effect is negligible which is not the same thing at all. That means there is an effect and it is assessed as negligible. People can only be assessed as net contributors if every aspect is considered and so far that has not occurred. There is a significant cost as regards Type 2 diabetes to which South Asians and African heritage immigrants are more susceptible by a factor of at least 5 and treating the effects of Diabetes accounts for about 10% of the NHS budget. Unless we include all factors we cannot assess properly any contribution to the economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 15, 2022 22:36:27 GMT
Most of the immigration in the time scale the Lords were investigating were from the EU - if EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street what is the point of it?. Your question is based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry. Whether something is of benefit to the average man is a faulty premise? - how do you work that one out? It is the only thing that matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 15, 2022 22:38:08 GMT
Your question is based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry. Whether something is of benefit to the average man is a faulty premise? - how do you work that one out?Bead frame and almanac. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2022 7:53:05 GMT
Your question is based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry. Whether something is of benefit to the average man is a faulty premise? - how do you work that one out? It is the only thing that matters. Here's your original premise: "If EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street."It is useless to place it in the conditional "IF" -- and now "Whether" -- as the context of your previous posts indicates that your premise is actually unqualified and emphatic as in: "EU migration does nothing to benefit the average man in the street." -- Which is a faulty premise. Isn't it? The fact is very much the opposite of what your premise says. The fact is, EU migration does a great deal to benefit the average man in the street. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2022 8:02:18 GMT
Your claim does not alter the fact that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. What it does is encourage people to play the "let's blame the EEs" game. If local parents manage to beat other local parents to school places of their choice, then there will be animosity between two groups of parents. There is no research or study that concludes that EE migrants do not add anything to the overall economy. All studies and researches conclude otherwise. They are net contributors to the national economy. Anecdotally, the volume and the amount of economic activity they generate in retail and private rental sectors alone is enough to tell you about the positive contribution to the economy migrants make. Not quite. The little evidence there is indicates that t he effect is negligible which is not the same thing at all. That means there is an effect and it is assessed as negligible. People can only be assessed as net contributors if every aspect is considered and so far that has not occurred. There is a significant cost as regards Type 2 diabetes to which South Asians and African heritage immigrants are more susceptible by a factor of at least 5 and treating the effects of Diabetes accounts for about 10% of the NHS budget. Unless we include all factors we cannot assess properly any contribution to the economy. The effect is negligible. Insignificant. Meaningless. Practically, Zero effect. Not worth the time and effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 16, 2022 8:12:59 GMT
Whether something is of benefit to the average man is a faulty premise? - how do you work that one out? It is the only thing that matters. Here's your original premise: "If EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street."It is useless to place it in the conditional "IF" -- and now "Whether" -- as the context of your previous posts indicates that your premise is actually unqualified and emphatic as in: "EU migration does nothing to benefit the average man in the street." -- Which is a faulty premise. Isn't it? The fact is very much the opposite of what your premise says. The fact is, EU migration does a great deal to benefit the average man in the street.
Which you keep restating and continually fail to prove.. The fact is that mass migration does not improve the living standards of the average guy in the street - it does improve the living standards of the immigrant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2022 8:42:49 GMT
Here's your original premise: "If EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street."It is useless to place it in the conditional "IF" -- and now "Whether" -- as the context of your previous posts indicates that your premise is actually unqualified and emphatic as in: "EU migration does nothing to benefit the average man in the street." -- Which is a faulty premise. Isn't it? The fact is very much the opposite of what your premise says. The fact is, EU migration does a great deal to benefit the average man in the street.
Which you keep restating and continually fail to prove.. The fact is that mass migration does not improve the living standards of the average guy in the street - it does improve the living standards of the immigrant. I've already told you studies conclude that EE migrants are net contributors to the economy. The fact is, the economic activity generated by EE migrants in retail, the private rental sector, construction and domestic sectors alone is quite considerable. And since they are mostly young workaholics with no dependents, their per capita contribution is so much higher. In terms of current account and government revenue? They pay huge amounts in taxes and NI contribution -- which will not be returned to them since they only work here for 3 or 4 years. You can't say -- so don't -- that EE migration does nothing to benefit you. That logic is faulty. The point of migrating is to improve one's living standards -- that's why Brits go to the States or Australia. Isn't it? You make it sound as though it was binary. Fine. So now that almost all EE migrants are gone or have been banished from the UK; has the living standards of the average guy in the UK street improved? No. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 16, 2022 16:43:17 GMT
Not quite. The little evidence there is indicates that t he effect is negligible which is not the same thing at all. That means there is an effect and it is assessed as negligible. People can only be assessed as net contributors if every aspect is considered and so far that has not occurred. There is a significant cost as regards Type 2 diabetes to which South Asians and African heritage immigrants are more susceptible by a factor of at least 5 and treating the effects of Diabetes accounts for about 10% of the NHS budget. Unless we include all factors we cannot assess properly any contribution to the economy. The effect is negligible. Insignificant. Meaningless. Practically, Zero effect. Not worth the time and effort. What little evidence there is shows it is negligible. So it does seem to be measurable and is opined as being negligible although that is very much a subjective word and very much depends on one's starting position. What was the evidence they used, how did they assess it. Could they have sought more evidence etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 17, 2022 9:49:20 GMT
The EU is 27 national democracies. LOL. Not according to the EU Communities Act, or the Lisbon Treaty. But you already know that. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 17, 2022 10:30:46 GMT
The HoL's recommendation to use GDP per capita is useless in this case since their recommended method (of using GDP per capita) deals with overall migration while what we've been discussing is the EE migrants' contribution to the whole economy or overall GDP. Unless, of course, the HoL study includes segmented analyses. Most of the immigration in the time scale the Lords were investigating were from the EU - if EU migration (or migration from anywhere) does nothing to benefit the average man in the street what is the point of it?. AFAIA migrants from outside of the EU always outnumbered those from within the EU. I'm always open to being corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 17, 2022 10:33:56 GMT
The EU is 27 national democracies. LOL. Not according to the EU Communities Act, or the Lisbon Treaty. But you already know that. I didn't. Which countries are not national democracies? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 17, 2022 11:17:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2022 11:40:18 GMT
The effect is negligible. Insignificant. Meaningless. Practically, Zero effect. Not worth the time and effort. What little evidence there is shows it is negligible. So it does seem to be measurable and is opined as being negligible although that is very much a subjective word and very much depends on one's starting position. What was the evidence they used, how did they assess it. Could they have sought more evidence etc etc Little evidence of what, exactly? But, let's be precise: It doesn't seem to be measurable. It IS measurable. Otherwise, they would not have been able to conclude that the effect is negligible. |
|
