|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
GhastlyUprising, you cite population density in sub Saharan Africa as an example, agrarian African countries tend to be those with the lowest income. Higher density countries, Nigeria springs to mind, do have higher inequality but median incomes also tend to be higher, this is because an increase in population in these countries is the result of industrialisation and higher paying jobs in cities drawing more people to these areas.
China in fact, is the perfect example, in the last 30 years we have seen the largest migration of people in the history of the world, to cities that now hold up to 30 million people. What has this done to the country? Well, this trend has coincided with a rise in disposable income, health care, and most measures of human well being.
To take this back to the original argument - immigration in the UK - there is almost a consensus in labour economics on the impact of immigration on the UK; the effect on employment of natives is almost nil, the effect on wages is marginally negative and the effect on benefits is also near zero. The impact on output in the country's output however, is positive. Now obviously there will be a critical point where the country cannot withstand any more immigration, but it is absurd to think we are close to that point now. The profile of immigrants entering the country is that of relatively skilled young workers, this obviously flies in the face of banal daily mirror notion that immigrants are all welfare scroungers who dont want to integrate into Britain. But y'know that makes easier news.
Oh and Malthusian theory was popular in the Victorian period, and has been refuted time and time again, most comprehensively during the green revolution in the 1970s.
|
I realize that many students of economics seem to have trouble with any concept that's more elaborate than "leave everything to the markets". But I'll spell this out very slowly. I did not say or imply that there is a correlation between poverty and population density. The simple reason, which would occur to anybody with a modicum of analytical ability, is that societies of higher economic potential can SUPPORT higher population densities.
The point rather was that much poverty in the world is a result of regions living beyond their optimal population density. Indeed, there would be no starvation or malnourishment in the world if the population density were sufficiently low. Conversely, there's a hell of a lot of starvation and malnourishment in Nigeria and there will be more unless their population becomes more stable sometime soon.
As for China being a "perfect" counter-example. China also has severe pollution, water shortages, and a one-child policy because the authorities are terrified about the prospect of an unstable population.
Going back to the UK: we already have 7.7% unemployment and a government that's cutting social services. Another wave of hundreds of thousands of immigrants would lead to tremendous additional pressure on jobs and social services at a time when we need it least.
As for Thomas Malthus: I think you'll find it's not something that can be refuted, but more a consequence of physics than economics. You can't have infinite people living in a finite area. No sane person can ignore the risk of overpopulation, especially when we're faced with rising energy costs as well as global warming.
|
Most economics students are taught a mixture of monetarism and keynesianism so really don't trust markets with everything hence the current situation where most western governments have government spending near 50% levels of GDP. As for poverty, i think a lack of property rights, trade and functioning society are much bigger problems for these people than the population density.
|
Umm
"much poverty in the world is a result of regions living beyond their optimal population density." this point is definitely arguing "there is a correlation between poverty and population density"
Id like to refer you to my 3rd paragraph with respect to your point on the UK, as I have said, " there is almost a consensus in labour economics on the impact of immigration on the UK; the effect on employment of natives is almost nil, the effect on wages is marginally negative and the effect on benefits is also near zero. The impact on output in the country's output however, is positive."
On Malthus, yeah great, that's wonderful, if we get a bajillion people in the world, clearly there will be issues, given we import the majority of food in the UK its not like people are going to start starving if an extra million enter the country. Im also not sure why a person coming from Eastern Europe, to the UK would contribute to rising global energy costs or global warming either, thats a non sequitur, as their contribution in their home country is likely to be similar.
|
I'd like you to pinpoint a SINGLE study that shows that low-earning immigrants provide as many jobs as they consume in the short term and their effect on employment of natives is almost nil. Because unless you can do that it hardly seems worth continuing.
And no, Thomas Malthus wasn't talking about a "bajillion" people. This isn't some abstract fucking theory with what ifs and maybes. Overpopulation happens all throughout the animal kingdom, it happened all throughout human history, and continues to this day. Severe acute malnourishment is the cause of one in seven child deaths.
I'm sorry if you can't understand how doing away with national borders and abandoning any aspirations everywhere toward a stable population will have the likely effect of driving up the world's population and contributing to global warming.
I'm not aware of a SINGLE half-sane pundit, even in the most fringe of right-wing and left-wing think tanks, who would deny that some regions are populated beyond their capacity to provide food and basic civil infrastructure.
|
On September 13 2013 06:32 GhastlyUprising wrote:
I'd like you to pinpoint a SINGLE study that shows that low-earning immigrants provide as many jobs as they consume in the short term and their effect on employment of natives is almost nil. Because unless you can do that it hardly seems worth continuing.
studies cannot predict the future but logically this is how it goes; immigrants come to the UK reduce labour costs which increases supply from firms which lowers the prices and increases output giving economic growth which create more jobs while everyone who buys goods from the firm gets them cheaper thus their real income has increased.
|
Here is one of the bajillion articles:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/09/right-to-reply-the-impact-of-immigration-on-the-labour-market/
I know its not rigorous peer reviewed analysis, but if you look through Jonathon Portes' reports he has authored you'll be able to find plenty.
Malthus' theory was absolutely abstract, he used simple geometric vs linear progressive relationships to explain the darn thing. Unfortunately his argument was not born out by evidence, simply because food has not increased at a linear rate over the past 100 years. Have you read his stuff? He argued for no sex before marriage and wars as two things that would reduce overpopulation, its actually quite amusing.
I have not once advocated "doing away" the UK's borders, you are arguing against a straw man. I also agree the global population is too large, but that is not the point I am making about Britain and isnt really relevant to the debate on UK policy, perhaps you can have that argument with someone else, somewhere else.
|
Damn right it's not rigorous. Even worse, it absolutely fails to address premise in question. I never said or implied ANYWHERE that immigrants don't pay their taxes or match the native employment rate and share in hiring.
All of those things could be true and it would still remain the case that a wave of hundreds of thousands of mostly low-paid immigrants is going to have a negative impact on employment of natives in the short-term. Denying this would be tantamount to assuming that immigrants are some kind of master race, able to create jobs out of nothing while the natives are languishing. At the very least you would need a truck full of evidence before you could POSSIBLY be justified in playing dice with the livelihoods of voters.
You might not have a stake in this, probably being from a middle class background like most of the open borders brigade and expecting a middle class job in a sector where there aren't that many immigrants. To anybody who's been in the social precariat, it's clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's so obvious as to go without saying that immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania are going to increase competition for low-paid jobs that require few qualifications.
The environmental concerns are quite separate, but equally important. At this crucial juncture in time, when the fate of our planet seems increasingly precarious, the last thing we need is for Britain (and let's face it: probably a number of other countries in Europe) to be swept away by the doctrine that 2% of the land being built on means there's plenty of room for more population.
|
On September 14 2013 00:30 GhastlyUprising wrote:Damn right it's not rigorous. Even worse, it absolutely fails to address premise in question. I never said or implied ANYWHERE that immigrants don't pay their taxes or match the native employment rate and share in hiring. All of those things could be true and it would still remain the case that a wave of hundreds of thousands of mostly low-paid immigrants is going to have a negative impact on employment of natives in the short-term. Denying this would be tantamount to assuming that immigrants are some kind of master race, able to create jobs out of nothing while the natives are languishing. At the very least you would need a truck full of evidence before you could POSSIBLY be justified in playing dice with the livelihoods of voters. You might not have a stake in this, probably being from a middle class background like most of the open borders brigade and expecting a middle class job in a sector where there aren't that many immigrants. To anybody who's been in the social precariat, it's clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's so obvious as to go without saying that immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania are going to increase competition for low-paid jobs that require few qualifications. The environmental concerns are quite separate, but equally important. At this crucial juncture in time, when the fate of our planet seems increasingly precarious, the last thing we need is for Britain (and let's face it: probably a number of other countries in Europe) to be swept away by the doctrine that 2% of the land being built on means there's plenty of room for more population.
Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about on either the economy or the planet.
|
On September 13 2013 08:35 olias wrote:
Malthus' theory was absolutely abstract, he used simple geometric vs linear progressive relationships to explain the darn thing. Unfortunately his argument was not born out by evidence, simply because food has not increased at a linear rate over the past 100 years. Have you read his stuff? He argued for no sex before marriage and wars as two things that would reduce overpopulation, its actually quite amusing. As a matter of simple logic, we will reach a time when food not only doesn't increase at a linear rate, but doesn't increase at all. Because all the arable land will be developed. In fact, we've already reached this point in the UK.
I'm afraid it's simply true, even as a consequence of physics, that a Malthusian catastrophe will occur if a population is left to grow indefinitely.
|
On September 14 2013 00:33 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:30 GhastlyUprising wrote:Damn right it's not rigorous. Even worse, it absolutely fails to address premise in question. I never said or implied ANYWHERE that immigrants don't pay their taxes or match the native employment rate and share in hiring. All of those things could be true and it would still remain the case that a wave of hundreds of thousands of mostly low-paid immigrants is going to have a negative impact on employment of natives in the short-term. Denying this would be tantamount to assuming that immigrants are some kind of master race, able to create jobs out of nothing while the natives are languishing. At the very least you would need a truck full of evidence before you could POSSIBLY be justified in playing dice with the livelihoods of voters. You might not have a stake in this, probably being from a middle class background like most of the open borders brigade and expecting a middle class job in a sector where there aren't that many immigrants. To anybody who's been in the social precariat, it's clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's so obvious as to go without saying that immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania are going to increase competition for low-paid jobs that require few qualifications. The environmental concerns are quite separate, but equally important. At this crucial juncture in time, when the fate of our planet seems increasingly precarious, the last thing we need is for Britain (and let's face it: probably a number of other countries in Europe) to be swept away by the doctrine that 2% of the land being built on means there's plenty of room for more population. Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about on either the economy or the planet. As opposed to somebody who makes Glenn Beck look like a moderate...
|
On September 14 2013 00:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:33 Zaros wrote:On September 14 2013 00:30 GhastlyUprising wrote:Damn right it's not rigorous. Even worse, it absolutely fails to address premise in question. I never said or implied ANYWHERE that immigrants don't pay their taxes or match the native employment rate and share in hiring. All of those things could be true and it would still remain the case that a wave of hundreds of thousands of mostly low-paid immigrants is going to have a negative impact on employment of natives in the short-term. Denying this would be tantamount to assuming that immigrants are some kind of master race, able to create jobs out of nothing while the natives are languishing. At the very least you would need a truck full of evidence before you could POSSIBLY be justified in playing dice with the livelihoods of voters. You might not have a stake in this, probably being from a middle class background like most of the open borders brigade and expecting a middle class job in a sector where there aren't that many immigrants. To anybody who's been in the social precariat, it's clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's so obvious as to go without saying that immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania are going to increase competition for low-paid jobs that require few qualifications. The environmental concerns are quite separate, but equally important. At this crucial juncture in time, when the fate of our planet seems increasingly precarious, the last thing we need is for Britain (and let's face it: probably a number of other countries in Europe) to be swept away by the doctrine that 2% of the land being built on means there's plenty of room for more population. Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about on either the economy or the planet. As opposed to somebody who makes Glenn Beck look like a moderate...
whether someone is radical or moderate has nothing to do with competence and ignorance.
|
On September 14 2013 02:38 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 14 2013 00:33 Zaros wrote:On September 14 2013 00:30 GhastlyUprising wrote:Damn right it's not rigorous. Even worse, it absolutely fails to address premise in question. I never said or implied ANYWHERE that immigrants don't pay their taxes or match the native employment rate and share in hiring. All of those things could be true and it would still remain the case that a wave of hundreds of thousands of mostly low-paid immigrants is going to have a negative impact on employment of natives in the short-term. Denying this would be tantamount to assuming that immigrants are some kind of master race, able to create jobs out of nothing while the natives are languishing. At the very least you would need a truck full of evidence before you could POSSIBLY be justified in playing dice with the livelihoods of voters. You might not have a stake in this, probably being from a middle class background like most of the open borders brigade and expecting a middle class job in a sector where there aren't that many immigrants. To anybody who's been in the social precariat, it's clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's so obvious as to go without saying that immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania are going to increase competition for low-paid jobs that require few qualifications. The environmental concerns are quite separate, but equally important. At this crucial juncture in time, when the fate of our planet seems increasingly precarious, the last thing we need is for Britain (and let's face it: probably a number of other countries in Europe) to be swept away by the doctrine that 2% of the land being built on means there's plenty of room for more population. Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about on either the economy or the planet. As opposed to somebody who makes Glenn Beck look like a moderate... whether someone is radical or moderate has nothing to do with competence and ignorance. And apparently you're both so ignorant and incompetent that you espouse the most fringe ideology without understanding the need to defend it with arguments or data...
|
You are right, I was brought up in the middle class, I also studied labour economics for three years, but of course the experience of living in the lower classes in one small part of the country trumps all analysis all the time right? I mean you have actual stories!
I presume you understand who popularised the term precariat? Well I have had numerous discussions with the man on labour security and i can guarantee you he falls on my side of the argument.
You mix up so many different arguments it is hard to follow your line of thought. But as I have mentioned before, the type of immigrants entering the UK arent low paid, well, they arent paid at all until they find jobs so im assuming you mean low skilled. These are young, hard working relatively skilled workers. This has always been the case: nurses from India and the Phillipines, skilled manual workers from eastern europe. You seem to have read too many scaremongering stories and assumed all immigrants are these low skilled muslim extremist, Brit hating Polish welfare scroungers, stealing our jobs and taking our women.
Of course immigration increases competition in the labour market and yet, we need a larger labour force to maintain the competitiveness of our industries, but also to support a very top heavy pensions system which has the potential to topple over in the next 10 years. What would you rather, uncompetitive industry with ever more companies leaving the UK for more productive countries? Or some Eastern European people working in our country? It's the short term blinkered argument for protectionism which fuels the immigration debate, without consideration for the outcomes of the same argument in the long run.
I am not saying we should let anyone into the country, I am not saying we should just allow unemployment to remain high. What I am saying however, is that immigration can absolutely be a force for good. Without it, this country would be on its knees, so would the USA and so would the majority of Europe. As such, the debate should not be focussed on arguments like, they are stealing all our jobs! Or by invoking debunked dead people, but reasoned analysis.
|
|
|
Nick Clegg will today issue a rallying call for party unity during the opening of the Lib Dem conference in Glasgow.
The plea will follow a senior Liberal Democrat publicly calling for him to resign and the resignation of a senior party member.
Clegg will today urge his party to treat each other "honestly and with respect" in a call for members to be proud of their record in government.
The comments come less than a week after former minister Sarah Teather said she was quitting as a Liberal Democrat lawmaker because the coalition government’s policies on welfare and immigration made her “catastrophically depressed.”
But Clegg has insisted his party should feel nothing but pride.
"When the debates are over and the speeches have finished I want you to join me in getting back out there and telling everyone this: We are the party of fairness. We are the party of freedom. And, yes, we are the party of jobs," he will say.
"We decided, together, to go into government. People who don’t understand us like to call debate division. I think it’s debates that give us our unity."
However Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, a close ally of Vince Cable and a former Treasury spokesman for the Lib Dems, has called for Clegg to quit.
Earlier this week he argued the party's poor poll ratings mean Clegg should be replaced by Cable.
"Let's be objective - we have to accept that Nick's ratings are very poor and have been for a long time," he said in an interview with The House magazine.
Source
|
On September 15 2013 03:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Nick Clegg will today issue a rallying call for party unity during the opening of the Lib Dem conference in Glasgow.
The plea will follow a senior Liberal Democrat publicly calling for him to resign and the resignation of a senior party member.
Clegg will today urge his party to treat each other "honestly and with respect" in a call for members to be proud of their record in government.
The comments come less than a week after former minister Sarah Teather said she was quitting as a Liberal Democrat lawmaker because the coalition government’s policies on welfare and immigration made her “catastrophically depressed.”
But Clegg has insisted his party should feel nothing but pride.
"When the debates are over and the speeches have finished I want you to join me in getting back out there and telling everyone this: We are the party of fairness. We are the party of freedom. And, yes, we are the party of jobs," he will say.
"We decided, together, to go into government. People who don’t understand us like to call debate division. I think it’s debates that give us our unity."
However Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, a close ally of Vince Cable and a former Treasury spokesman for the Lib Dems, has called for Clegg to quit.
Earlier this week he argued the party's poor poll ratings mean Clegg should be replaced by Cable.
"Let's be objective - we have to accept that Nick's ratings are very poor and have been for a long time," he said in an interview with The House magazine. Source
Lord Oakeshott is a joke, he comes round every year at this time calling for Nick Clegg to go. He also seems to love Vince Cable more than Vince Cable.
|
On September 13 2013 04:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
I realize that many students of economics seem to have trouble with any concept that's more elaborate than "leave everything to the markets". But I'll spell this out very slowly. I did not say or imply that there is a correlation between poverty and population density. The simple reason, which would occur to anybody with a modicum of analytical ability, is that societies of higher economic potential can SUPPORT higher population densities.
The point rather was that much poverty in the world is a result of regions living beyond their optimal population density. Indeed, there would be no starvation or malnourishment in the world if the population density were sufficiently low. Conversely, there's a hell of a lot of starvation and malnourishment in Nigeria and there will be more unless their population becomes more stable sometime soon.
As for China being a "perfect" counter-example. China also has severe pollution, water shortages, and a one-child policy because the authorities are terrified about the prospect of an unstable population.
Going back to the UK: we already have 7.7% unemployment and a government that's cutting social services. Another wave of hundreds of thousands of immigrants would lead to tremendous additional pressure on jobs and social services at a time when we need it least.
As for Thomas Malthus: I think you'll find it's not something that can be refuted, but more a consequence of physics than economics. You can't have infinite people living in a finite area. No sane person can ignore the risk of overpopulation, especially when we're faced with rising energy costs as well as global warming.
From an ecological point of view it might be true, but from a human point of view it is not. We are, at the moment, producing enough product, food, "water" (yeah I know we do not really produce that), for everyone in the planet. The problem is not a problem of production, but a problem of distribution and inequalities (between countries, and in each countries).
|
David Cameron's plan to stop EU "benefit tourism" by restricting migrants' legal right to freedom of movement is running into serious difficulties after a parliamentary committee and the European Commission both accused ministers of failing to provide substantial evidence of widespread abuse.
At the same time, a joint report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research and global recruitment consultancy Harvey Nash has concluded that any measures to restrict freedom of movement to the UK from other parts of the EU would have a devastating effect on the British economy, because EU citizens are more likely to be in work and are more productive than British-born workers. The report says that curbing immigration from other parts of the EU could cost the UK £60bn in lost GDP (2% in real terms) by 2050.
|
Conservatives were given a sharp dose of reality by some harsh poll numbers this weekend, days after Boris Johnson last week spoke of a "glide path to victory in 2015".
In a poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft of marginal Tory seats, results showed a 14% Labour lead in 32 closest Con-Lab constituencies, with the UKIP share tripling since 2010 election.
The polls show Labour remains on course for an overall majority at the next general election, according to a poll of nearly 13,000 voters in marginal constituencies conducted by Lord Ashcroft.
The lead comes in spite of polls showing David Cameron remaining in the lead as the best Prime Minister and a lack of trust from voters in Labour's record on the economy. All the economic data seem to point to the beginnings of a recovery, which Conservative election strategists are confident is their key to victory.
"The tripling of UKIP’s vote share in marginal constituencies since the last election could put Ed Miliband in Number 10," the report said.
Mid-Bedfordshire Tory MP Nadine Dorries said the numbers showed the party could seriously consider a pact with Ukip.
‘We need to fight for our lives and the only way we can do that is to reclaim the right-of-centre policies as our own,’ she told the Mail.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
