|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 13:27:16 GMT
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. 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. As you admitted, we don't need to attract 'skilled workers' - we don't have much in the way of manufacturing and the people we are importing, on the whole don't have any skills - many barely have English. The jobs these people are (on the whole) doing are not skilled. Mostly, they either work in the public (clown) sector, open kebab shops or move into criminality. Why the hell are we importing people to convert all the fish and chip shops in our cities into kebab shops? What is the strategy here? 45% is outrageous - considering the Soviet Union itself never managed 100%
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 14:18:24 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. Work related immigration, people moving hare with family to work is this whole conversation. Temporary workers and students are not an issue really, provided they go home at the end. But the number of people coming here to live is not just maintaining the status quo with each death or retiree replaced one for one. So, do you have an upper limit? A point at which even you say no more? A hundred million, 2 hundred million? Is there a point when you would consider paying a bit more tax to end the ponzi scheme?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 14:28:09 GMT
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. 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. As you admitted, we don't need to attract 'skilled workers' - we don't have much in the way of manufacturing and the people we are importing, on the whole don't have any skills - many barely have English. The jobs these people are (on the whole) doing are not skilled. Mostly, they either work in the public (clown) sector, open kebab shops or move into criminality. Why the hell are we importing people to convert all the fish and chip shops in our cities into kebab shops? What is the strategy here? 45% is outrageous - considering the Soviet Union itself never managed 100% Who are you arguing with? I don't want any more immigrants either. Though I don't brand them as you do. 45% is less than most, which you've edited away. The things you fail to realise are the advances in care and safety we have come to expect and the cost of having them. I wont bother to ask you what you'd give up as I've tried it in the past. Apparently we can all have individual genetic cancer treatment if we get rid of diversity managers. And a proton scanner if we scrap a rainbow zebra crossing.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 15:39:26 GMT
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. Work related immigration, people moving hare with family to work is this whole conversation. Temporary workers and students are not an issue really, provided they go home at the end. But the number of people coming here to live is not just maintaining the status quo with each death or retiree replaced one for one. So, do you have an upper limit? A point at which even you say no more? A hundred million, 2 hundred million? Is there a point when you would consider paying a bit more tax to end the ponzi scheme? I am not sure everyone would agree with you that it is only immigration on work visas that is the issue. I accept that appears to be your view however. Do I have a numerical upper limit? No. But the very nature of work visas means people can only come in if the government assesses that there is a compelling need for someone with those skills in the economy to help the economy grow paying for the otherwise ageing population or providing services (eg care workers) that the existing population cannot meet. If that situation changes for a myriad of reasons then further work immigration would no longer be needed. As I said before in pure financial terms, immigration is generally much more cost effective than a whole life citizen. It’s hardly a Ponzi scheme. I don’t understand your point about paying more tax - two different things surely.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 16:08:50 GMT
Work related immigration, people moving hare with family to work is this whole conversation. Temporary workers and students are not an issue really, provided they go home at the end. But the number of people coming here to live is not just maintaining the status quo with each death or retiree replaced one for one. So, do you have an upper limit? A point at which even you say no more? A hundred million, 2 hundred million? Is there a point when you would consider paying a bit more tax to end the ponzi scheme? I am not sure everyone would agree with you that it is only immigration on work visas that is the issue. I accept that appears to be your view however. Do I have a numerical upper limit? No. But the very nature of work visas means people can only come in if the government assesses that there is a compelling need for someone with those skills in the economy to help the economy grow paying for the otherwise ageing population or providing services (eg care workers) that the existing population cannot meet. If that situation changes for a myriad of reasons then further work immigration would no longer be needed. As I said before in pure financial terms, immigration is generally much more cost effective than a whole life citizen. It’s hardly a Ponzi scheme. I don’t understand your point about paying more tax - two different things surely. I admire your trust in the Conservative government that they only bring people in where there is a compelling need. My opinion is that they do it to keep tax rates lower than they should be. That instead of paying for the services we need, we subsidise it by bringing people in who don't. Their tax covers our bills. Trouble is in a few years they need those services so you need to bring in more people who don't. Ponzi scheme and tax explained. To provide the services an aging population needs costs more money every year, but the people with money would rather have their fifth holiday. So governments need to raise that missing tax by a different method. Each year they invite another half a million young fit educated people to live here. These folks contribute more tax than they take, so they subsidise the taxes of those already here. However every year a number of them cross over and become net takers, they become parents or get old so every year you need another half a million young fit educated people to live here. We could stop this by asking those already here to pay the tax that is needed for the services they want.
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 13, 2024 16:22:00 GMT
I am not sure everyone would agree with you that it is only immigration on work visas that is the issue. I accept that appears to be your view however. Do I have a numerical upper limit? No. But the very nature of work visas means people can only come in if the government assesses that there is a compelling need for someone with those skills in the economy to help the economy grow paying for the otherwise ageing population or providing services (eg care workers) that the existing population cannot meet. If that situation changes for a myriad of reasons then further work immigration would no longer be needed. As I said before in pure financial terms, immigration is generally much more cost effective than a whole life citizen. It’s hardly a Ponzi scheme. I don’t understand your point about paying more tax - two different things surely. I admire your trust in the Conservative government that they only bring people in where there is a compelling need. My opinion is that they do it to keep tax rates lower than they should be. That instead of paying for the services we need, we subsidise it by bringing people in who don't. Their tax covers our bills. Trouble is in a few years they need those services so you need to bring in more people who don't. Ponzi scheme and tax explained. To provide the services an aging population needs costs more money every year, but the people with money would rather have their fifth holiday. So governments need to raise that missing tax by a different method. Each year they invite another half a million young fit educated people to live here. These folks contribute more tax than they take, so they subsidise the taxes of those already here. However every year a number of them cross over and become net takers, they become parents or get old so every year you need another half a million young fit educated people to live here. We could stop this by asking those already here to pay the tax that is needed for the services they want. I would say that summarises the situation well. In addition if you have one of the most densely populated countries in Europe (Europe may even be the most densely populated continent) then you really should be aiming for a net zero migration policy. I have no problem with immigrants bar possibly language for a variety of reasons but I am uneasy about how densely populated the country has become and the Ponzi scheme effect on my daughter's future
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 13, 2024 16:56:36 GMT
In addition I have just watched a Marr Goodwin video where he says only 15% of immigration was under high skilled visas
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 18:54:24 GMT
I am not sure everyone would agree with you that it is only immigration on work visas that is the issue. I accept that appears to be your view however. Do I have a numerical upper limit? No. But the very nature of work visas means people can only come in if the government assesses that there is a compelling need for someone with those skills in the economy to help the economy grow paying for the otherwise ageing population or providing services (eg care workers) that the existing population cannot meet. If that situation changes for a myriad of reasons then further work immigration would no longer be needed. As I said before in pure financial terms, immigration is generally much more cost effective than a whole life citizen. It’s hardly a Ponzi scheme. I don’t understand your point about paying more tax - two different things surely. I admire your trust in the Conservative government that they only bring people in where there is a compelling need. My opinion is that they do it to keep tax rates lower than they should be. That instead of paying for the services we need, we subsidise it by bringing people in who don't. Their tax covers our bills. Trouble is in a few years they need those services so you need to bring in more people who don't. Ponzi scheme and tax explained. To provide the services an aging population needs costs more money every year, but the people with money would rather have their fifth holiday. So governments need to raise that missing tax by a different method. Each year they invite another half a million young fit educated people to live here. These folks contribute more tax than they take, so they subsidise the taxes of those already here. However every year a number of them cross over and become net takers, they become parents or get old so every year you need another half a million young fit educated people to live here. We could stop this by asking those already here to pay the tax that is needed for the services they want. I am struggling to understand your post Zany. I think we have agreed that in pure financial terms, someone arriving here at say age 25 and living here for the rest of their lives is financially better for the state than someone here from year one. Better still is someone who arrives here works for a bit and then goes someone else. Both cases fit the profile of immigrants more than people born here. Yet you seem to see immigrants as a financial problem. You seem to misunderstand the numbers. Immigration is not increasing the working age population , it is helping to keep it roughly the same. The population growth is coming from increased numbers at the older age. Were we not to be topping up our working age population with immigration those numbers would be falling. A static working age population is already struggling and failing to fund an increasing retired population. Imagine how much taxes would have to rise for a falling working age population to fund an increasing retired population. And then we look at your projection for say 30 years time. Well they don’t make sense either. If life expectancy remains unchanged then a static working age population now means a static retirement age population then. Which means to stand still we would need a comparable working age population then as now. Your “ponzi sceme” of ever more people misunderstands maths.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 19:30:09 GMT
I am struggling to understand your post Zany. I think we have agreed that in pure financial terms, someone arriving here at say age 25 and living here for the rest of their lives is financially better for the state than someone here from year one. Better still is someone who arrives here works for a bit and then goes someone else. Both cases fit the profile of immigrants more than people born here. Yet you seem to see immigrants as a financial problem. You seem to misunderstand the numbers. Immigration is not increasing the working age population , it is helping to keep it roughly the same. The population growth is coming from increased numbers at the older age. Were we not to be topping up our working age population with immigration those numbers would be falling. A static working age population is already struggling and failing to fund an increasing retired population. Imagine how much taxes would have to rise for a falling working age population to fund an increasing retired population. And then we look at your projection for say 30 years time. Well they don’t make sense either. If life expectancy remains unchanged then a static working age population now means a static retirement age population then. Which means to stand still we would need a comparable working age population then as now. Your “ponzi sceme” of ever more people misunderstands maths. Where I think the misunderstanding comes is this. That ofcourse there is a net gain from someone coming here as an adult already educated. The downside is population. Your house. You invite a lodger to live with you to help reduce the hours you have to work. Then you invite another and you only need to work part time, then another and now you have loads of spare time and a nice car. How long before your family start to question how crowded the house is and whether the gains you have made are worth the queue for the bathroom and the mess.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 13, 2024 19:38:26 GMT
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. 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. As you admitted, we don't need to attract 'skilled workers' - we don't have much in the way of manufacturing and the people we are importing, on the whole don't have any skills - many barely have English. . . Not my experience of immigrants at all. Where do you get that perception from.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 19:47:09 GMT
Not sure that analogy works Zany.
Let’s forget about nationality and skin colour and all the misrepresentations those whose real agenda is based on skin colour have sent out there some of which have been “bought” and accepted as fact by decent people who don’t care about race.
Sadly we have to simplify a complicated situation to try to cut through the noise to get to the underlying fact. So let’s forget about productivity gains (we all want that but no one knows how to achieve it). Let’s also assume (very simplistically) assume that working age population create wealth that kids and retired people consume. A generalisation perhaps but it helps to illustrate the point.
An island has 10 kids, 40 working age people and 10 retired. 60 people in all. It has an adequate standard of living. Five years later it has 10 kids, 30 working age and 20 retired. It has a choice of bringing in more working age people from the next door island. Should it?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 20:35:07 GMT
Not sure that analogy works Zany. Let’s forget about nationality and skin colour and all the misrepresentations those whose real agenda is based on skin colour have sent out there some of which have been “bought” and accepted as fact by decent people who don’t care about race. Don't see any need to bring racism into it. I am not anymore racist than you. Fine. Depends how big the island is. Bardsey Island. 179 hectares. 2miles long 1 mile wide. What happens when the Island has 200 kids 800 working age people and 200 retired. 1,200 people in all. Then 2,000 kids 8,000 working age and 2,000 retired 12,000 in all. When do you start looking for alternative solutions?
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 20:45:54 GMT
I didn’t say you were Zany. I said it would appear you may have been taken in by lies and misrepresentations from those who are.
You exaggerate so much it makes the analogy meaningless. For the second time now.
I think the point has been made.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 20:59:40 GMT
I didn’t say you were Zany. I said it would appear you may have been taken in by lies and misrepresentations from those who are. You exaggerate so much it makes the analogy meaningless. For the second time now. I think the point has been made. You have a habit of two things. One: Insulting people and then adding insults in your apologies. Two: Saying you think you've won when your not close. You are clearly incapable of understanding either analogy or straight questions. My analogy goes unanswered. My straight question (Do you have an upper limit on UK population) remains unanswered. Yet you claim your points made. Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 13, 2024 21:03:46 GMT
Not sure that analogy works Zany. Let’s forget about nationality and skin colour and all the misrepresentations those whose real agenda is based on skin colour have sent out there some of which have been “bought” and accepted as fact by decent people who don’t care about race. Sadly we have to simplify a complicated situation to try to cut through the noise to get to the underlying fact. So let’s forget about productivity gains (we all want that but no one knows how to achieve it). Let’s also assume (very simplistically) assume that working age population create wealth that kids and retired people consume. A generalisation perhaps but it helps to illustrate the point. An island has 10 kids, 40 working age people and 10 retired. 60 people in all. It has an adequate standard of living. Five years later it has 10 kids, 30 working age and 20 retired. It has a choice of bringing in more working age people from the next door island. Should it? If one were to assume the depedency ratio of workers to children is 1:1, i.e 10 workers for 10 children. That leaves a dependency ratio workers to pensioners of 3:1 in your initial population. Wouldn't that mean to maintain the dependency ratio for your revised population the islanders would need to import 40 additional workers, increasing the population by 67%?
|
|