Careless Tories!

[ramAnag]

Actually that report does contain a lot of sense. It's not about abolition of migration, it's about control and quality. The argument that migration enhances GDP is fallacious it is GDP per capital that matters.

This may not appeal to the soft left humanists here, but economically you cannot justify importing people who are not net GDP per capital effective/enhancing

I take your point GP and accept some of the complexities you speak of. (Please remember that bit!)
However ‘economically’ we cannot ‘justify’ many things. Economically we probably cannot justify the money spent on the old, the sick and those with special needs. Economically what is the point of curing someone, or keeping them alive, if all they are going to do is retire and become a burden on society?
Fortunately…and I know I’m sounding like one of those ‘soft left humanists’…not everything is driven entirely by economics.

[Trickytreesreds]

Leaking into the papers, well those that dont hide it anyway

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-crisis-worse/

[Trickytreesreds]

I take your point GP and accept some of the complexities you speak of. (Please remember that bit!)
However ‘economically’ we cannot ‘justify’ many things. Economically we probably cannot justify the money spent on the old, the sick and those with special needs. Economically what is the point of curing someone, or keeping them alive, if all they are going to do is retire and become a burden on society?
Fortunately…and I know I’m sounding like one of those ‘soft left humanists’…not everything is driven entirely by economics.

Rubbish. We have an obligation to our own, as does every other country in the world.
Exactly where is the sense in flooding more and more people in for negative benefit, which ultimately makes everyone poorer?
This is a downward spiral, because as a country , we have failed to invest in our people with education and training.
It was made easier for industry to import labour and now we are paying the price.
The fact remains, not everyone that comes into the UK contributes for the better of the nation
Import so much cheap labour, they arrive with dependents and give next to nothing back, campared to what they take out.
It isn't tocket science

[swaledale]

But don't go running away with the notion that the dividends are being handed out for no good reason to flash city guys in bowlers hats quaffing champagne and ordering new Ferraris.

There is a basic dividend cost for any equity capital that has escalated as interest rates rise, and most of the shareholders will be pension funds for normal working people. These funds need fuel to grow and keep pension projections slightly inflation proofed.

This does demonstrate the fragility of any pluralist economy - ie one that is dependent on funding from "little people" - which, however dressed up, lies at the core of UK economy. Routed through hedge funds, pensions ISA's, investment funds etc, it's sill your and my savings in use here.

These are the potential losers, unless we have the mindset to not invest in the UK economy at the moment. Which I have, whether rightly or wrongly we shall see.

Your right, up to a point, but what has happened with TW and indeed to a number of other previously publicly owned services such as care Homes for instance, is that the venture capitalists have taken over and the dividends are funded by loading the company with debt, these types of deals, similar ones did for BHS etc. Are basically ponzi schemes in all but name, they rely on ever increasing revenues to service the debt and instead of dividends being paid out of profits, they are paid from borrowing.

Vulture capitalism at its worst and unsustainable.

[ramAnag]

Rubbish. We have an obligation to our own, as does every other country in the world.
Exactly where is the sense in flooding more and more people in for negative benefit, which ultimately makes everyone poorer?
This is a downward spiral, because as a country , we have failed to invest in our people with education and training.
It was made easier for industry to import labour and now we are paying the price.
The fact remains, not everyone that comes into the UK contributes for the better of the nation
Import so much cheap labour, they arrive with dependents and give next to nothing back, campared to what they take out.
It isn't tocket science

Rubbish? Thanks…you mean…you disagree. No great surprise there.
But, yet again you miss the point.

My response, to GP, was that…although I recognised his point, there is a real danger in suggesting that, ‘economically’ we cannot justify providing for the needs of those who are ‘not net GDP per capita effective/enhancing’.

Imo it turns people into mere commodities. It’s a very complex issue, I accept that, but we’re talking very fine lines and there are a great many people, probably including you and possibly all but about three on this forum, who wouldn’t score very highly if judged now on our individual contribution to GDP per capita efficacy.

[Geoff Parkstone]

The difference of course being that pensioners, such as yourself, have "paid into the system" for 50 odd years before becoming GDP per capita negative in later life - so they have credit in the bank so to speak.

Imported labour or refugees don't come with this enhanced economic tag. Indeed much of the earnings of imported labour is often remitted back to country of origin (nothing wrong with that) and so doesn't enter into the earnings multiplier computations.

On a purely economic level therefore migrant labour (permanent or transient) is not all it's cracked up to be. It also often comes with baggage - eg economically inactive family members. The positives of getting jobs done that our own entitled domestic workforce prefer not to do does offset this downside, but is it enough in the round?

I am deliberately only talking economics here. The soft humanitarian aspects cannot be measured on a logical scale. Some may value humanitarian decisions over economic ones. Personally I don't, you'll be surprised to learn 😀. So each to their own - there is no right answer.

[Geoff Parkstone]

.

"Exactly where is the sense in flooding more and more people in for negative benefit, which ultimately makes everyone poorer?"

Here is the flaw in the above. Yes short term the he indigenous population will be "poorer", but those incomers will become massively better off so not everyone can or does lose. The wealthy (or comparatively wealthy,) lose and the impoverished gain.

The benefits for all may be better seen for later generations - we have declining birth rates and lengthening life expectancies. We will need people of whatever hue to address the consequences of this, most notably in terms of tax take and pension funding. See Japan and Germany as early recognisers of the problem.

Immigration is a possible fix for this but it does need control as the ringing in too many people into the economy can be negative in terms of resources crowding / overwhelming eg hospitals, education, housing, green space etc. The planet is overpopulated as a whole, bring back the pandemic?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Oops that was a quote from TTR and not rA

[ramAnag]

Oops that was a quote from TTR and not rA

Good God…I have never felt so insulted in my life!

[ramAnag]

The difference of course being that pensioners, such as yourself, have "paid into the system" for 50 odd years before becoming GDP per capita negative in later life - so they have credit in the bank so to speak.

Imported labour or refugees don't come with this enhanced economic tag. Indeed much of the earnings of imported labour is often remitted back to country of origin (nothing wrong with that) and so doesn't enter into the earnings multiplier computations.

On a purely economic level therefore migrant labour (permanent or transient) is not all it's cracked up to be. It also often comes with baggage - eg economically inactive family members. The positives of getting jobs done that our own entitled domestic workforce prefer not to do does offset this downside, but is it enough in the round?

I am deliberately only talking economics here. The soft humanitarian aspects cannot be measured on a logical scale. Some may value humanitarian decisions over economic ones. Personally I don't, you'll be surprised to learn ��. So each to their own - there is no right answer.

I do take your point, although I’d query the ‘50 odd years’, but, imo, the migrant issue isn’t going to go away. It is only going to increase as a result of war, famine, poverty and, one imagines, increasing numbers related to climate change.
There but for the accident of birth go you and I…we were both fortunate enough to be born to good and caring parents in a (relatively) stable society. Not everyone is and it requires some joined up thought from the ‘wealthy world’ to deal with the problem not more and more division.
I’m sure I’m guilty of being idealistic, in the same way as your economic stance may appear callous and Tricky’s thoughtless…but the UK is not alone in having a problem with immigration, indeed others in Europe take far more and, as ever, the better off and wealthier countries need to work together to solve the problem rather than demonise the poorest.

I really don’t know what the acceptable alternative is and it doesn’t seem to have worked out too badly for Australia and the USA.