|
Post by equivocal on Jun 13, 2024 9:34:32 GMT
The point I was trying to make was that without increased business investment, productivity improvements will not happen. I am suggesting that the last, at least, ten years of political chaos has discouraged investment. We know Brexit discouraged investment. What else do you think stops it? I don't believe its taxation, most investors are looking to get better interest rate returns than they can in the markets. So with interest rates at all time lows getting 10% on your investment is very tempting. But the thing putting investors off is the risk of failure which is high in the UK because of poor management by government. I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons for Britain's 'recent' poor investment record. I think a major disincentive flows from an economy in a country governed by a political party that seems to be in a permanent state of civil war.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 9:37:53 GMT
The working population is relatively static and only then because of immigration. The population increase is largely a result of more retired people and of course because they tend to require more healthcare and have inefficient housing use that is putting pressure on services. It could well be argued that without immigrants doing the work and paying the tax, we would be in a far worse situation. Those are the issues. Is the only solution ever more people. Lets not forget that while it would cost more tax per person to slow immigration, a fair percentage of the tax gained is then needed for servicing those new residents. Of course immigrants use services and many will eventually retire here. It is of course true however that from a pure financial point of view, the perfect resident is someone who arrives after schooling at say 25 at a time when on average healthcare costs are low and buggers off again before reaching say 55 when healthcare costs start rising and soon will attract pension. Immigrants are on average more likely to follow this profile than people born here.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 9:43:11 GMT
An unsustainable attempt to keep a flawed model going by kicking the can down the road and (notionally) letting the costs be paid by the future.
Of course, there is no future because it is unsustainable
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 10:06:07 GMT
Good point. What solution is Sudan using? Maybe we could emulate their economy? A solution to allow the state to expand with a population that is steady or marginally reducing? I'm not sure they are applying one - That was my point. Which territories have similar economics to us but do not suffer "ever more people everywhere, just ever more people specifically in our territory"
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 10:08:39 GMT
Those are the issues. Is the only solution ever more people. Lets not forget that while it would cost more tax per person to slow immigration, a fair percentage of the tax gained is then needed for servicing those new residents. Of course immigrants use services and many will eventually retire here. It is of course true however that from a pure financial point of view, the perfect resident is someone who arrives after schooling at say 25 at a time when on average healthcare costs are low and buggers off again before reaching say 55 when healthcare costs start rising and soon will attract pension. Immigrants are on average more likely to follow this profile than people born here. I think everyone understands that Dappy. What in your opinion is the end point?
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 10:29:23 GMT
Actually with the tabloid press coverage not sure everyone does (including perhaps Orac). Sorry could you clarify please -what do you mean by what is the end point (May be me being thick)
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 13, 2024 10:36:18 GMT
An unsustainable attempt to keep a flawed model going by kicking the can down the road and (notionally) letting the costs be paid by the future. Of course, there is no future because it is unsustainable The problem being that the solutions to this are all short term pain and that is a recipe for electoral defeat so doesn't get offered. How many parties are proposing delaying state pensions to age 70 or higher? That'd be none and instead we give unfunded triple lock pensions to take people out of the work force at mid 60s and lower which increases the need for immigrant workers. How many parties are proposing extra taxation to properly fund education and training of Brits. Can't recall any. How many parties are proposing ending the massive influx of foreign students to our universities? Again can't recall any
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 10:43:18 GMT
An unsustainable attempt to keep a flawed model going by kicking the can down the road and (notionally) letting the costs be paid by the future. Of course, there is no future because it is unsustainable The problem being that the solutions to this are all short term pain and that is a recipe for electoral defeat so doesn't get offered. The solutions now are short term pain, but this has been a long term, multi generational, policy featuring multiple failed democratic attempts by the UK public to get it even amelioratedHalf our economy now is dodgy vape shops, kebabs and Turkish barbers., with operators who aren't sidelining in criminality being made bankrupt I doubt the pain would be that great and this is clearly a road to nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 11:43:24 GMT
Actually with the tabloid press coverage not sure everyone does (including perhaps Orac). Sorry could you clarify please -what do you mean by what is the end point (May be me being thick) If the only way to offset the cost of a growing number of retired people is constant immigration at what point does this cease to be necessary or does it keep going until people start to fall off the edges into the sea?
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 13, 2024 11:43:46 GMT
In a way most of the people here are right. Immigration levels now keep the tax bill down now, but as Steve says it’s a Ponzi scheme because at some point there will be a reckoning. This ties in with Oracs pain now comment IMO.
Suella Braverman said that whilst there was a desire to bring immigration down in the cabinet business pressure to keep immigration up won the day because it’s cheaper to import labour (in the short term) than it is to train labour. And there is also a timing issue, no good waiting for two years for someone to be trained if you need them now.
Finally I would say there is a very real possibility that AI will deliver productivity improvements and that these will potentially put skilled workers out of a job. It might be possible for these workers to be retrained in areas that AI cannot do but I would suspect they would involve lower wages. It looks to me like AI is another driver for wealth inequality.
As to productivity, personal services, such as care for the elderly has less scope for productivity improvements as it is only physically possible for one person to care for so many others.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 11:49:47 GMT
The problem being that the solutions to this are all short term pain and that is a recipe for electoral defeat so doesn't get offered. The solutions now are short term pain, but this has been a long term, multi generational, policy featuring multiple failed democratic attempts by the UK public to get it even amelioratedHalf our economy now is dodgy vape shops, kebabs and Turkish barbers., with operators who aren't sidelining in criminality being made bankrupt I doubt the pain would be that great and this is clearly a road to nowhere. Unfortunately this is not due to immigration but to foreign competition from countries with lower standards of living but the technology to compete with us in the world markets. The only solutions I see to this is either a substantial lowering of our living standards or perhaps the growth of automation bringing down the cost of manufacture. Unfortunately the second also requires a lowering of living standards as it puts people out of work, apart from vape shops and takeaways. Larger groups like the EU and America are able to use their buying power to control the markets better and can turn away direct competition without fear of retaliation. We lost that ability with Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 12:06:40 GMT
The solutions now are short term pain, but this has been a long term, multi generational, policy featuring multiple failed democratic attempts by the UK public to get it even amelioratedHalf our economy now is dodgy vape shops, kebabs and Turkish barbers., with operators who aren't sidelining in criminality being made bankrupt I doubt the pain would be that great and this is clearly a road to nowhere. Unfortunately this is not due to immigration but to foreign competition from countries with lower standards of living but the technology to compete with us in the world markets. This is just a canard - most of these people do not end up in manufacturing, because our approaching third world status means we just don't do much of it anymore. They go into a bloated public sector, the service sector or the benefit system. If manufacture were really the issue, this could be solved with things like temporary work visas (for specific work). You wouldn't need to bring half of Asia and Africa into the UK and give them voting rights
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 12:11:15 GMT
Actually with the tabloid press coverage not sure everyone does (including perhaps Orac). Sorry could you clarify please -what do you mean by what is the end point (May be me being thick) If the only way to offset the cost of a growing number of retired people is constant immigration at what point does this cease to be necessary or does it keep going until people start to fall off the edges into the sea? There are of course a number of different categories of immigration. It doesn’t really work to consider them all as one. Here we are talking about work related immigration. The answer to when that isn’t needed would be if and when increased productivity (including AI) compensates naturally for the otherwise declining workforce and when that declining workforce provides all the relevant skills the economy requires. If say AI does deliver it, we then have a much bigger conversation around how do we equitably share the wealth but that can be another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 12:33:26 GMT
Unfortunately this is not due to immigration but to foreign competition from countries with lower standards of living but the technology to compete with us in the world markets. This is just a canard - most of these people do not end up in manufacturing, because our approaching third world status means we just don't do much of it anymore. They go into a bloated public sector, the service sector or the benefit system. Canard: a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report. b : a groundless rumor or belief
I think not, And make up your mind, are they working in vape shops and takeaways or the NHS? Our public sector is no more expensive than any other 1st world country. Percentage of GDP/ Government spending France 58% Germany 50% Italy 56% Spain 47% Greece 55% Finland 54% Belgium 53% Austria 52% Hungary 50% Denmark 49% Sweden 47% Portugal 46% UK 45% (Which is why its so shit at the moment) The point is not that we can't get workers its that we have no manufacturing left. Not sure we could attract skilled workers on temporary visas, might be worth a try. But they would still require the services of a first world country with first world working conditions etc.
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 13, 2024 13:10:18 GMT
If the only way to offset the cost of a growing number of retired people is constant immigration at what point does this cease to be necessary or does it keep going until people start to fall off the edges into the sea? There are of course a number of different categories of immigration. It doesn’t really work to consider them all as one. Here we are talking about work related immigration. The answer to when that isn’t needed would be if and when increased productivity (including AI) compensates naturally for the otherwise declining workforce and when that declining workforce provides all the relevant skills the economy requires. If say AI does deliver it, we then have a much bigger conversation around how do we equitably share the wealth but that can be another thread. So are you saying that we need to effectively keep importing labour because we have low productivity? That sounds a bit like a circular argument. Surely we just produce less because of the long term pain producing more is likely to cause us. I am currently of the opinion that we import labour because it is the easiest solution and makes our GDP look better. I am not sure either of those reasons stand up too much scrutiny
|
|