|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 21, 2024 16:33:32 GMT
I don’t think that there’s any doubt that a number of issues have been mismanaged and that if the right people are coming into the country and can benefit the system whether it’s the NHS or other agencies then it’s great but there has to be a cap and there has to be proper monitoring so that we and the asylum seeker can reap the benefits. As with most things if you deal with individuals rather than groups you’ll get a better result. I'm sure Ely will correct me if I have misinterpreted his post of which I thoroughly agree with. The approximate 1.5M people who have come to this Country in the last two years are not Asylum Seekers but Economic Migrants with Visas who have been invited to come to this Country to fill the Skills shortages without which Public Services primarily NHS and the Care Sector would collapse. As these people are gainfully employed and paying taxes and a multitude of studies show that Migrants are net contributors to the Economy, Ely is questioning, rightly so, where has the money been spent. The answer is not proportional to the influx of people on Housing, Schools etc This is the Crux and fundamental question people should be focused on. In the same period about 50K people came to this Country uninvited and these are Asylum Seekers. We don't know if they are genuine or not because since summer 2023 Government decided not to find out and simply decided to house them in Hotels without any plan of what to do with them other than mythically send them to Rwanda Ely used the 95%/5% equation, it is closer to 97%/3% and it's this 3% most of the attention is focused on rather than what actions have been taken to accommodate the 1.5M people that have been invited here. Maybe we will get a definition of what "Hard Action" would entail, presumably against the 3%. We have to take into account when we are deciding on this hard action that UK gains a lot of influence in Soft Power and if we sign up to International Agreements e.g. ECHR we are obligated to follow the rules. Of course as an independent Country we can withdraw from International Agreements but there are consequences Cheers good explanation.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 23, 2024 11:26:26 GMT
We must be the envy of the world with all these skilled highly professional people landing on our southern shores. Apparently the US has imported something like 30 million highly qualified people simply walking across the border. Once again a deliberate conflation of 2 issues Only 3% immigrants 'land on our southern shores'- the other 97% are exactly the skilled people you speak of - or should be because they enter the country legally largely to work. They do so because (a) we have an ageing population (b) we have 11 million economically inactive people between 18-64 and (c) around 1m people Leave the UK each year. Add to that we have lower productivity than the US, Germany and France. Sort some of those issues out and we wont NEED as much immigration. Fail to sort them out and you'd better get used to it if you want people around to pay tax to fund your pension and prescriptions in old age or wipe your arse when you can't do it for yourself. But lets not - let's blame foreigners instead. I think this was partly an obvious consequence of Brexit. European immigrants were generally more productive, paid more tax etc than non-EU immigrants (and native-born Britons iirc). We lost access to EU immigrants, so that meant fewer workers and less tax money. Either you cut stuff like the NHS and pensions, or you brought in more immigrants than before to cover the costs. Voters didn't want cuts. Also the pound took a dump so the UK is less competitive for higher skilled jobs. I know when I started in the US the like-with-like pay for my position was about 10% higher in California than the UK. Now the gap is about 70%. That's just exchange rate stuff and doesn't really represent actual costs etc but when PhDs and doctors and engineers are comparing countries it's the first thing they'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 23, 2024 11:55:52 GMT
Once again a deliberate conflation of 2 issues Only 3% immigrants 'land on our southern shores'- the other 97% are exactly the skilled people you speak of - or should be because they enter the country legally largely to work. They do so because (a) we have an ageing population (b) we have 11 million economically inactive people between 18-64 and (c) around 1m people Leave the UK each year. Add to that we have lower productivity than the US, Germany and France. Sort some of those issues out and we wont NEED as much immigration. Fail to sort them out and you'd better get used to it if you want people around to pay tax to fund your pension and prescriptions in old age or wipe your arse when you can't do it for yourself. But lets not - let's blame foreigners instead. I think this was partly an obvious consequence of Brexit. European immigrants were generally more productive, paid more tax etc than non-EU immigrants (and native-born Britons iirc). We lost access to EU immigrants, so that meant fewer workers and less tax money. Either you cut stuff like the NHS and pensions, or you brought in more immigrants than before to cover the costs. Voters didn't want cuts. Also the pound took a dump so the UK is less competitive for higher skilled jobs. I know when I started in the US the like-with-like pay for my position was about 10% higher in California than the UK. Now the gap is about 70%. That's just exchange rate stuff and doesn't really represent actual costs etc but when PhDs and doctors and engineers are comparing countries it's the first thing they'll see. Project fear ...
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Aug 23, 2024 11:58:04 GMT
I'm sure Ely will correct me if I have misinterpreted his post of which I thoroughly agree with. The approximate 1.5M people who have come to this Country in the last two years are not Asylum Seekers but Economic Migrants with Visas who have been invited to come to this Country to fill the Skills shortages without which Public Services primarily NHS and the Care Sector would collapse. As these people are gainfully employed and paying taxes and a multitude of studies show that Migrants are net contributors to the Economy, Ely is questioning, rightly so, where has the money been spent. The answer is not proportional to the influx of people on Housing, Schools etc This is the Crux and fundamental question people should be focused on. In the same period about 50K people came to this Country uninvited and these are Asylum Seekers. We don't know if they are genuine or not because since summer 2023 Government decided not to find out and simply decided to house them in Hotels without any plan of what to do with them other than mythically send them to Rwanda Ely used the 95%/5% equation, it is closer to 97%/3% and it's this 3% most of the attention is focused on rather than what actions have been taken to accommodate the 1.5M people that have been invited here. Maybe we will get a definition of what "Hard Action" would entail, presumably against the 3%. We have to take into account when we are deciding on this hard action that UK gains a lot of influence in Soft Power and if we sign up to International Agreements e.g. ECHR we are obligated to follow the rules. Of course as an independent Country we can withdraw from International Agreements but there are consequences Cheers good explanation. Most people tend to deliberately conflate what an asylum seeker and illegal immigrant is. The way the UK immigration system is set up, an individual can only claim asylum if they are physically in the UK. They are not allowed to claim asylum from overseas and there are extremely few channels to seek asylum. The Conservative government unfairly deemed everyone claiming asylum as an illegal immigrant as the Home Office could not process the number of asylum claims due to austerity and a lack of staff. To get around this, the previous Conservative government then deemed them all as illegal immigrants when they weren't...they were just trying to claim asylum and so placed in hotels pending their applications being processed.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 25, 2024 14:05:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 25, 2024 14:33:41 GMT
I love the last paragraph of the tweet. Essentially 'I want you to believe this unsubstantiated story and pass it on to as many people as possible, and then I'd like you to send me some money". Does he say how or under what agreement Spain will be sending some of the "70,000" migrants (who haven't arrived yet and so right now don't actually exist) to the UK?
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 25, 2024 14:51:49 GMT
Most people tend to deliberately conflate what an asylum seeker and illegal immigrant is. The way the UK immigration system is set up, an individual can only claim asylum if they are physically in the UK. They are not allowed to claim asylum from overseas and there are extremely few channels to seek asylum. The Conservative government unfairly deemed everyone claiming asylum as an illegal immigrant as the Home Office could not process the number of asylum claims due to austerity and a lack of staff. To get around this, the previous Conservative government then deemed them all as illegal immigrants when they weren't...they were just trying to claim asylum and so placed in hotels pending their applications being processed. If you deliberately throw away documents to try to scam the system, you are an illegal immigrant.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Aug 25, 2024 18:03:48 GMT
Once again a deliberate conflation of 2 issues Only 3% immigrants 'land on our southern shores'- the other 97% are exactly the skilled people you speak of - or should be because they enter the country legally largely to work. They do so because (a) we have an ageing population (b) we have 11 million economically inactive people between 18-64 and (c) around 1m people Leave the UK each year. Add to that we have lower productivity than the US, Germany and France. Sort some of those issues out and we wont NEED as much immigration. Fail to sort them out and you'd better get used to it if you want people around to pay tax to fund your pension and prescriptions in old age or wipe your arse when you can't do it for yourself. But lets not - let's blame foreigners instead. I think this was partly an obvious consequence of Brexit. European immigrants were generally more productive, paid more tax etc than non-EU immigrants (and native-born Britons iirc). We lost access to EU immigrants, so that meant fewer workers and less tax money. Either you cut stuff like the NHS and pensions, or you brought in more immigrants than before to cover the costs. Voters didn't want cuts. Also the pound took a dump so the UK is less competitive for higher skilled jobs. I know when I started in the US the like-with-like pay for my position was about 10% higher in California than the UK. Now the gap is about 70%. That's just exchange rate stuff and doesn't really represent actual costs etc but when PhDs and doctors and engineers are comparing countries it's the first thing they'll see. Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyQuote: Note the article is a year old so things may have changed.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 25, 2024 19:00:04 GMT
I think this was partly an obvious consequence of Brexit. European immigrants were generally more productive, paid more tax etc than non-EU immigrants (and native-born Britons iirc). We lost access to EU immigrants, so that meant fewer workers and less tax money. Either you cut stuff like the NHS and pensions, or you brought in more immigrants than before to cover the costs. Voters didn't want cuts. Also the pound took a dump so the UK is less competitive for higher skilled jobs. I know when I started in the US the like-with-like pay for my position was about 10% higher in California than the UK. Now the gap is about 70%. That's just exchange rate stuff and doesn't really represent actual costs etc but when PhDs and doctors and engineers are comparing countries it's the first thing they'll see. Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyQuote: Note the article is a year old so things may have changed. Portes is correct to say hospitality workers wages have reduced in the last 12 months, but it has to be put in context of the huge boost in their wages post pandemic. www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2023/05/hospitality-workers-cash-in-on-higher-wages-outpacing-national-average/That resulted in a surge in people seeking work in hospitality. It's a case of supply and demand. As the economy grows again and the public go out more as they have done for the Euros and Olympics demand for hospitality workers will grow and wages will follow. This BH W/E is forecast to be a bumper for staycations which will boost hotel receipts.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Aug 25, 2024 19:03:08 GMT
Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyQuote: Note the article is a year old so things may have changed. Portes is correct to say hospitality workers wages have reduced in the last 12 months, but it has to be put in context of the huge boost in their wages post pandemic. www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2023/05/hospitality-workers-cash-in-on-higher-wages-outpacing-national-average/That resulted in a surge in people seeking work in hospitality. It's a case of supply and demand. As the economy grows again and the public go out more as they have done for the Euros and Olympics demand for hospitality workers will grow and wages will follow. This BH W/E is forecast to be a bumper for staycations which will boost hotel receipts. Are there any hotels left 😆
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 25, 2024 19:28:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 25, 2024 21:38:04 GMT
Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyQuote: Note the article is a year old so things may have changed. Portes is correct to say hospitality workers wages have reduced in the last 12 months, but it has to be put in context of the huge boost in their wages post pandemic. www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2023/05/hospitality-workers-cash-in-on-higher-wages-outpacing-national-average/That resulted in a surge in people seeking work in hospitality. It's a case of supply and demand. As the economy grows again and the public go out more as they have done for the Euros and Olympics demand for hospitality workers will grow and wages will follow. This BH W/E is forecast to be a bumper for staycations which will boost hotel receipts.Tut tut Mr Coke you chastise those who rely on forecasts.... and yet here you are. And Swamp was correct to include a caveat about the date of the Article All Portes negative conclusions on Brexit are fulfilled as he stated his one potentially positive outcome of something being positive from Brexit was itself a projection/forecast and is also sadly incorrect "It’s too early to say what the overall balance sheet will look like – but as well as alleviating workforce pressures on the NHS and social care sectors, the rise in skilled worker inflows, alongside the rise in international students, is likely to have increased not just GDP but GDP per capita, benefiting the UK economy and public finances. And, most of all, public opinion appears to be intensely relaxed about rising inflows when the economic case is clear. (This comment hasn't aged well) It is difficult to say if the Economic situation would have been worse if the huge inflow of 1.4M Net Immigrants who entered the UK in the 2 years after UK "took back control of its Borders" hadn't occurred. My contention is that it would but i can't prove it. What i can say is that Portes projection/forecast that per Capita GDP would increase due to this "Brexit Benefit" was entirely wrong and i have no doubt he would now agree as the figures are published that per Capita GDP in UK has declined since Brexit
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 25, 2024 22:09:33 GMT
Portes is correct to say hospitality workers wages have reduced in the last 12 months, but it has to be put in context of the huge boost in their wages post pandemic. www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2023/05/hospitality-workers-cash-in-on-higher-wages-outpacing-national-average/That resulted in a surge in people seeking work in hospitality. It's a case of supply and demand. As the economy grows again and the public go out more as they have done for the Euros and Olympics demand for hospitality workers will grow and wages will follow. This BH W/E is forecast to be a bumper for staycations which will boost hotel receipts.Tut tut Mr Coke you chastise those who rely on forecasts.... and yet here you are. And Swamp was correct to include a caveat about the date of the Article All Portes negative conclusions on Brexit are fulfilled as he stated his one potentially positive outcome of something being positive from Brexit was itself a projection/forecast and is also sadly incorrect "It’s too early to say what the overall balance sheet will look like – but as well as alleviating workforce pressures on the NHS and social care sectors, the rise in skilled worker inflows, alongside the rise in international students, is likely to have increased not just GDP but GDP per capita, benefiting the UK economy and public finances. And, most of all, public opinion appears to be intensely relaxed about rising inflows when the economic case is clear. (This comment hasn't aged well) It is difficult to say if the Economic situation would have been worse if the huge inflow of 1.4M Net Immigrants who entered the UK in the 2 years after UK "took back control of its Borders" hadn't occurred. My contention is that it would but i can't prove it. What i can say is that Portes projection/forecast that per Capita GDP would increase due to this "Brexit Benefit" was entirely wrong and i have no doubt he would now agree as the figures are published that per Capita GDP in UK has declined since Brexit Do we know how many of the 1.4m net immigrants in the last 2 years are working in critical job functions? 10%, 15%? Of course if you have 10 million more people than we did in the year 2000, as we do, total GDP will be higher but it is GDP per head which matters. And of that's 10 million more people needing homes, prisons, Doctors, schools, roads, trains, benefits, carers and so on. Bussing in shed loads of immigrants and their dependants is the economics of the mad House. We need to somehow get a tune out of the 9 million people of working age who are not working that we already have here.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Aug 25, 2024 22:13:00 GMT
Tut tut Mr Coke you chastise those who rely on forecasts.... and yet here you are. And Swamp was correct to include a caveat about the date of the Article All Portes negative conclusions on Brexit are fulfilled as he stated his one potentially positive outcome of something being positive from Brexit was itself a projection/forecast and is also sadly incorrect "It’s too early to say what the overall balance sheet will look like – but as well as alleviating workforce pressures on the NHS and social care sectors, the rise in skilled worker inflows, alongside the rise in international students, is likely to have increased not just GDP but GDP per capita, benefiting the UK economy and public finances. And, most of all, public opinion appears to be intensely relaxed about rising inflows when the economic case is clear. (This comment hasn't aged well) It is difficult to say if the Economic situation would have been worse if the huge inflow of 1.4M Net Immigrants who entered the UK in the 2 years after UK "took back control of its Borders" hadn't occurred. My contention is that it would but i can't prove it. What i can say is that Portes projection/forecast that per Capita GDP would increase due to this "Brexit Benefit" was entirely wrong and i have no doubt he would now agree as the figures are published that per Capita GDP in UK has declined since Brexit Do we know how many of the 1.4m net immigrants in the last 2 years are working in critical job functions? 10%, 15%? Of course if you have 10 million more people than we did in the year 2000, as we do, total GDP will be higher but it is GDP per head which matters. And of course that's 10 million more people needing homes, prisons, Doctors, schools, roads, trains, benefits, carers and so on. It's the economics of the mad House. Careful. You'll be labelled a racist for trying to adopt common sense 🤫
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 25, 2024 23:23:30 GMT
Tut tut Mr Coke you chastise those who rely on forecasts.... and yet here you are. And Swamp was correct to include a caveat about the date of the Article All Portes negative conclusions on Brexit are fulfilled as he stated his one potentially positive outcome of something being positive from Brexit was itself a projection/forecast and is also sadly incorrect "It’s too early to say what the overall balance sheet will look like – but as well as alleviating workforce pressures on the NHS and social care sectors, the rise in skilled worker inflows, alongside the rise in international students, is likely to have increased not just GDP but GDP per capita, benefiting the UK economy and public finances. And, most of all, public opinion appears to be intensely relaxed about rising inflows when the economic case is clear. (This comment hasn't aged well) It is difficult to say if the Economic situation would have been worse if the huge inflow of 1.4M Net Immigrants who entered the UK in the 2 years after UK "took back control of its Borders" hadn't occurred. My contention is that it would but i can't prove it. What i can say is that Portes projection/forecast that per Capita GDP would increase due to this "Brexit Benefit" was entirely wrong and i have no doubt he would now agree as the figures are published that per Capita GDP in UK has declined since Brexit Do we know how many of the 1.4m net immigrants in the last 2 years are working in critical job functions? 10%, 15%? Of course if you have 10 million more people than we did in the year 2000, as we do, total GDP will be higher but it is GDP per head which matters. And of that's 10 million more people needing homes, prisons, Doctors, schools, roads, trains, benefits, carers and so on. Bussing in shed loads of immigrants and their dependants is the economics of the mad House. We need to somehow get a tune out of the 9 million people of working age who are not working that we already have here. A point was trying to be made that a Brexit Sceptic Economist was forecasting that a possible Brexit Benefit was an increased skilled workforce could increase GDP per Capita, it didn't. I doubt that is due to the skilled workforce but decline as a result of Brexit. About half the 1.4M were skilled workers and their dependants, about 350K were students and their dependants, about 250K were Ukrainians, Hong Kongers, Afghans and other legacy issues and about 100k were "uninvited guests" The UK population increase is no different to similarly advanced countries over the last few decades according to Migration Observatory I completely agree there has been an utter failure to provide Housing and Public Services for a largely invited increase in population Of the 9.5M between the age of 16 - 64 classified as Economically inactive about 1.5M are unemployed and looking for work, 2.5M are long term ill and another 300K short term ill (good luck getting an NHS Appointment) about 1.7 are unpaid carers or looking after family home, 2.5M are work shy Students and about 1M have retired early. Good luck in getting a tune out of them. The percentage of people in work between the age of 16 - 24 is about 75% and has been about this number for decades
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 26, 2024 7:00:09 GMT
Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyThat's some interesting info. I was thinking about data from just before the Brexit vote but van only find an example from 2019 which is kinda similar to what I was thinking of. "Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found. And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero." My recollection was that pre Brexit EU immigrants contributed the most and non-EU immigrants the least. So after Brexit we'd obviously either have to cut funding the NHS or pensions or something, or attract many more immigrants to pay for things. And politicians picked option 2. I can't see past the numbers because I think you have to make budgets add up.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 26, 2024 7:13:03 GMT
Do we know how many of the 1.4m net immigrants in the last 2 years are working in critical job functions? 10%, 15%? Of course if you have 10 million more people than we did in the year 2000, as we do, total GDP will be higher but it is GDP per head which matters. And of that's 10 million more people needing homes, prisons, Doctors, schools, roads, trains, benefits, carers and so on. Bussing in shed loads of immigrants and their dependants is the economics of the mad House. We need to somehow get a tune out of the 9 million people of working age who are not working that we already have here. A point was trying to be made that a Brexit Sceptic Economist was forecasting that a possible Brexit Benefit was an increased skilled workforce could increase GDP per Capita, it didn't. I doubt that is due to the skilled workforce but decline as a result of Brexit. About half the 1.4M were skilled workers and their dependants, about 350K were students and their dependants, about 250K were Ukrainians, Hong Kongers, Afghans and other legacy issues and about 100k were "uninvited guests" The UK population increase is no different to similarly advanced countries over the last few decades according to Migration Observatory I completely agree there has been an utter failure to provide Housing and Public Services for a largely invited increase in population Of the 9.5M between the age of 16 - 64 classified as Economically inactive about 1.5M are unemployed and looking for work, 2.5M are long term ill and another 300K short term ill (good luck getting an NHS Appointment) about 1.7 are unpaid carers or looking after family home, 2.5M are work shy Students and about 1M have retired early. Good luck in getting a tune out of them. The percentage of people in work between the age of 16 - 24 is about 75% and has been about this number for decades Good post, some excellent, and alarming data points there.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 26, 2024 7:48:06 GMT
Well the Crowne Plaza in Surbiton I've used in the past, isn't available anymore (similar to others nearby), it's full of migrants and reported stabbings there last year. My daughter is moving to Surbiton in about 3 weeks, I'm going down to help her move, it's not the best thing to know. It makes all the other hotels more expensive as there isn't enough rooms about as previously.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Aug 26, 2024 9:56:58 GMT
Not wholly sure it's true that EU migrants were/are more productive. Jonathan Portes (generally very anti-Brexit economist) thinks/thought otherwise. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but given there is a moderate salary bar for (legal) RoW migrants (there was no salary bar fro EU migrants pre-Brexit) I would expect it to be somewhat true. Link www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/panic-immigration-brexit-wages-uk-economyThat's some interesting info. I was thinking about data from just before the Brexit vote but van only find an example from 2019 which is kinda similar to what I was thinking of. "Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found. And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero." My recollection was that pre Brexit EU immigrants contributed the most and non-EU immigrants the least. So after Brexit we'd obviously either have to cut funding the NHS or pensions or something, or attract many more immigrants to pay for things. And politicians picked option 2. I can't see past the numbers because I think you have to make budgets add up. It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 26, 2024 22:32:42 GMT
That's some interesting info. I was thinking about data from just before the Brexit vote but van only find an example from 2019 which is kinda similar to what I was thinking of. "Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found. And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero." My recollection was that pre Brexit EU immigrants contributed the most and non-EU immigrants the least. So after Brexit we'd obviously either have to cut funding the NHS or pensions or something, or attract many more immigrants to pay for things. And politicians picked option 2. I can't see past the numbers because I think you have to make budgets add up. It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 26, 2024 23:21:13 GMT
It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. As a direct result of Brexit, is there more legal immigration from the Indian subcontinent? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 26, 2024 23:38:48 GMT
It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. I didn't see Swamps post previously so in part I'm replying to that as well as yours. Swamps claim that there is an equalisation of opportunity for skilled recruitment between EU and ROW in my opinion is dubious. It is a points based system based on skills but the offer of employment salary can be 20% lower than that paid to a UK National for the same position That to me is favouring the attractiveness to a emplyee coming from a 2nd/3rd World Economy versus someone coming from a comparable 1st World Economy In Swamps final paragraph his condition based on equal opportunity is met but the Economic benefit test is more nuanced. If the employee wherever they may come from is paid 20% below the equivalent salary of a UK person then the taxes they pay will also be 20% lower and its no longer possible to compare contribution like for like. If the Company that employs the EU/ROW worker makes extra profits through lower wages then they pay 5% extra Tax e.g. 20% X 25%.. whether that extra 15% is better given to UK of Foreign Shareholders or the Treasury to spend on Public Services I think it's obvious In your second paragraph I believe Swamp has already answered your question from his point of view when he said : " In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value and not discriminating based on country of origin" You of course may hold a different view. Finally to answer the question in your 3rd paragraph - of course not, fortunately we reside in a free Country where people are allowed to express any opinions as long as they are not hateful or inciting violence
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 27, 2024 5:47:37 GMT
It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. Conversely is any immigrant who is reluctant to engage in and respect the community and culture of the country they emigrate too?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 27, 2024 5:49:32 GMT
Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. As a direct result of Brexit, is there more legal immigration from the Indian subcontinent? Yes. At the time of Brexit my missus worked with a lot of Indian engineers who'd been in the country a good while, had kids, bought property and become citizens. They all voted leave.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Aug 27, 2024 7:08:35 GMT
Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. I didn't see Swamps post previously so in part I'm replying to that as well as yours. Swamps claim that there is an equalisation of opportunity for skilled recruitment between EU and ROW in my opinion is dubious. It is a points based system based on skills but the offer of employment salary can be 20% lower than that paid to a UK National for the same position That to me is favouring the attractiveness to a emplyee coming from a 2nd/3rd World Economy versus someone coming from a comparable 1st World Economy In Swamps final paragraph his condition based on equal opportunity is met but the Economic benefit test is more nuanced. If the employee wherever they may come from is paid 20% below the equivalent salary of a UK person then the taxes they pay will also be 20% lower and its no longer possible to compare contribution like for like. If the Company that employs the EU/ROW worker makes extra profits through lower wages then they pay 5% extra Tax e.g. 20% X 25%.. whether that extra 15% is better given to UK of Foreign Shareholders or the Treasury to spend on Public Services I think it's obvious In your second paragraph I believe Swamp has already answered your question from his point of view when he said : " In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value and not discriminating based on country of origin" You of course may hold a different view. Finally to answer the question in your 3rd paragraph - of course not, fortunately we reside in a free Country where people are allowed to express any opinions as long as they are not hateful or inciting violence On a technical point, I understand that the 20% lower salary thing has (correctly IMHO) been scrapped. homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/23/reducing-net-migration-factsheet-december-2023/Additionally the 'General Salary Threshold' has been drastically increased to 38,700 GBP (although there are some exceptions for certain occupations - primarily in health and social care).* The 38,700 level seems to be moving towards a level where migrants are clearly more likely to be net contributors and (IMO) certainly better than the previous regime where you could recruit anyone from within the EU and only have to meet the minimum wage standard. You wrote "That to me is favouring the attractiveness to a emplyee coming from a 2nd/3rd World Economy versus someone coming from a comparable 1st World Economy."I think this is fine. My preference is that the UK cherry picks migrants based on their economic value. In simple terms, I want the UK to import rather fewer people to hand wash cars and pick fruit and rather more IT engineers (as examples) the country of origin is somewhat irrelevant to me. Of course, opening up these higher paid occupations to a greater pool (RoW workers) implies greater wage competition but I'm alright with that provided that the net benefit is clearly positive. In theory, this should also somewhat improve income equality whilst also 'growing the pie'. The important point is that firms can no longer import workers down the salary scales who are not net contributors. * NOTE I'm not really in favour of Governments muddling and tinkering like this. I'd prefer a standard rate for a work visa and a higher rate for a work visa with dependents but it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Aug 27, 2024 7:23:02 GMT
It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. Your post gets right to the heart of the matter. Do you assess immigration purely in economic terms or is there a valid and wider cultural integration argument? Simplistically is anyone who says 'I feel like a stranger in my own town' a bigot or worse still a racist? I don't know, I genuinely don't know. I tend to see things primarily economically but I also recognize that there cultural questions that are external to the economics are valid and relevant. I'd hope that my preferred immigration model, which is basically liberalising high income migration and limiting lower income migration, would, at least in part, address cultural concerns. I don't think most people are particularly concerned by high income migration (e.g. Indian doctors, French nuclear physicists, American bankers etc.) largely because they integrate quicker, are not competing with poorer workers, and are clearly providing a net benefit. In theory it should also slow the rate of migration.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 27, 2024 8:34:36 GMT
As a direct result of Brexit, is there more legal immigration from the Indian subcontinent? Yes. At the time of Brexit my missus worked with a lot of Indian engineers who'd been in the country a good while, had kids, bought property and become citizens. They all voted leave. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 27, 2024 10:06:29 GMT
It's probably related to the types of immigration and how they have changed pre/post Brexit. I'm only speculating but I guess that pre-Brexit 'Rest of World' migration would have been proportionally higher through routes such as family/spouse visas (and asylum maybe) and therefore less likely to be necessarily economically beneficial than economic migrants from the EU. Post the equalisation of treatment (for EU and Rest of World) I would expect the 'value' of migration from the two to equalize ceteris paribus. In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value (e.g. salary conditions for visas) and not discriminating based on country of origin. All fair points mate. I don't have strong opinions on the details of immigration, but as an immigrant in the US I can't chat too much shit. I think that there can be so much immigration that it caused serious problems and the numbers said we were getting a great financial deal from European immigrants, so I just expected Brexit would mean we'd need more. But before making my mind up about the real effects I'd want to do weeks of detailed research and I can't be arsed so will stick to throwing comments from the clueless crowd I'm in 👍
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 27, 2024 11:53:07 GMT
I didn't see Swamps post previously so in part I'm replying to that as well as yours. Swamps claim that there is an equalisation of opportunity for skilled recruitment between EU and ROW in my opinion is dubious. It is a points based system based on skills but the offer of employment salary can be 20% lower than that paid to a UK National for the same position That to me is favouring the attractiveness to a emplyee coming from a 2nd/3rd World Economy versus someone coming from a comparable 1st World Economy In Swamps final paragraph his condition based on equal opportunity is met but the Economic benefit test is more nuanced. If the employee wherever they may come from is paid 20% below the equivalent salary of a UK person then the taxes they pay will also be 20% lower and its no longer possible to compare contribution like for like. If the Company that employs the EU/ROW worker makes extra profits through lower wages then they pay 5% extra Tax e.g. 20% X 25%.. whether that extra 15% is better given to UK of Foreign Shareholders or the Treasury to spend on Public Services I think it's obvious In your second paragraph I believe Swamp has already answered your question from his point of view when he said : " In general, I'm broadly in favour of discriminating based on expected economic value and not discriminating based on country of origin" You of course may hold a different view. Finally to answer the question in your 3rd paragraph - of course not, fortunately we reside in a free Country where people are allowed to express any opinions as long as they are not hateful or inciting violence On a technical point, I understand that the 20% lower salary thing has (correctly IMHO) been scrapped. homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/23/reducing-net-migration-factsheet-december-2023/Additionally the 'General Salary Threshold' has been drastically increased to 38,700 GBP (although there are some exceptions for certain occupations - primarily in health and social care).* The 38,700 level seems to be moving towards a level where migrants are clearly more likely to be net contributors and (IMO) certainly better than the previous regime where you could recruit anyone from within the EU and only have to meet the minimum wage standard. You wrote "That to me is favouring the attractiveness to a emplyee coming from a 2nd/3rd World Economy versus someone coming from a comparable 1st World Economy."I think this is fine. My preference is that the UK cherry picks migrants based on their economic value. In simple terms, I want the UK to import rather fewer people to hand wash cars and pick fruit and rather more IT engineers (as examples) the country of origin is somewhat irrelevant to me. Of course, opening up these higher paid occupations to a greater pool (RoW workers) implies greater wage competition but I'm alright with that provided that the net benefit is clearly positive. In theory, this should also somewhat improve income equality whilst also 'growing the pie'. The important point is that firms can no longer import workers down the salary scales who are not net contributors. * NOTE I'm not really in favour of Governments muddling and tinkering like this. I'd prefer a standard rate for a work visa and a higher rate for a work visa with dependents but it is what it is. Thanks Swamp. It hard to keep up with the Regs Fo new r Visas granted after the 4th April the 20% reduction no longer applies
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 28, 2024 19:22:16 GMT
What the actual fuck 🤯
|
|