|
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 |
On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense.
The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin.
Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality.
Key point: please be careful when referring to immigration/Leave voters. It is a huge leap to suggest that Leave voters are against skilled immigration and not just free movement. Polls consistently show healthy support for skilled immigration.
|
On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality.
Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it.
|
On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it.
But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour.
|
On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:
Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality.
You really don't need to Brexit to tackle income inequality, standard policy response is to just increase the highest tax brackets ( instead of keeping such loopholes as non-dom taxation open ). That way you save yourself the years of legal limbo, the Zimbabwean currency devaluation, etc. We've addressed that before : if anything, economic shocks impact the poorest the most, it's common sense once again. Abramovich doesn't care that Ben&Jerry's is £2 more at Tesco's or the latest Macbook is +£200.
|
On November 04 2016 01:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:
Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. You really don't need to Brexit to tackle income inequality, standard policy response is to just increase the highest tax brackets ( instead of keeping such loopholes as non-dom taxation open ). That way you save yourself the years of legal limbo, the Zimbabwean currency devaluation, etc. We've addressed that before : if anything, economic shocks impact the poorest the most, it's common sense once again. Abramovich doesn't care that Ben&Jerry's is £2 more at Tesco's or the latest Macbook is +£200.
Increasing taxes on the rich to pay for an influx of people is not something you can sustain indefinitely. It's a bubble, not a solution.
More people come (remember we have no power to limit the numbers), so you increase taxation and public spending to support the current standard of living which then, in turn, incentivises more to come.
|
I don't know if this has already been said but legally it would've been insane if the government was able to bypass parliament, and would have enormous constitutional implications for the country
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense.
I'll give a longer response when I get home tonight. The general response though is simply that if there are good and bad immigrants, certainly it doesn't make sense to take a "all immigrants can GTFO" approach, but at the same time an "open the floodgates and let loose the tide of immigrants" is also wrong. It makes perfect sense to have a strict but not un-nuanced immigration policy.
|
On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour.
So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in.
Again first you lift standards then you redistribute. If redistribution has failed to occcur, you vote for Labour, not for Brexit, which would first and foremost make everyone poorer.
I also dispute that immigration is driving inequality in a functioning tax environment. Immigrants pay taxes as per the state's prerogative. It is up to the state to act on the Gini ( measure of the shape of the income distribution ) through sound fiscal policy.
A lot of the study when you read it says many job positions would simply not be filled at both ends of the spectrum ( Italian speaking tour operator, European aerospace engineer ). These people's PAYE tax contributions then are a net benefit to the economy as they grow it overall. There would be no GDP gain without them. Legacy of the Void.
|
On November 04 2016 01:54 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:
Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. You really don't need to Brexit to tackle income inequality, standard policy response is to just increase the highest tax brackets ( instead of keeping such loopholes as non-dom taxation open ). That way you save yourself the years of legal limbo, the Zimbabwean currency devaluation, etc. We've addressed that before : if anything, economic shocks impact the poorest the most, it's common sense once again. Abramovich doesn't care that Ben&Jerry's is £2 more at Tesco's or the latest Macbook is +£200. Increasing taxes on the rich to pay for an influx of people is not something you can sustain indefinitely. It's a bubble, not a solution. More people come (remember we have no power to limit the numbers), so you increase taxation and public spending to support the current standard of living which then, in turn, incentivises more to come.
Again, sorry but mathematically wrong. The imbalance would not be if 'more people came', but if 'more low-skilled migrants than high-skilled ones' started coming. All evidence, including that report, and the superior productivity of London compared to the rest of the country, points towards the fact that the repartition has been stable.
Increasing taxes is not a bubble. London has less all-in income tax than NYC when you add state and federal tax. The US economy is more than fine.
Again : a marginal, speculative effect on the Gini is irrelevant and not worth 10% of your currency, increasing taxes or other economic solutions exist to tackle inequality and making everyone poorer is definitely not one of them.
|
On November 04 2016 01:59 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:54 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:
Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. You really don't need to Brexit to tackle income inequality, standard policy response is to just increase the highest tax brackets ( instead of keeping such loopholes as non-dom taxation open ). That way you save yourself the years of legal limbo, the Zimbabwean currency devaluation, etc. We've addressed that before : if anything, economic shocks impact the poorest the most, it's common sense once again. Abramovich doesn't care that Ben&Jerry's is £2 more at Tesco's or the latest Macbook is +£200. Increasing taxes on the rich to pay for an influx of people is not something you can sustain indefinitely. It's a bubble, not a solution. More people come (remember we have no power to limit the numbers), so you increase taxation and public spending to support the current standard of living which then, in turn, incentivises more to come. Again, sorry but mathematically wrong. The imbalance would not be if 'more people came', but if 'more low-skilled migrants than high-skilled ones' started coming. All evidence, including that report, and the superior productivity of London compared to the rest of the country, points towards the fact that the repartition has been stable. Increasing taxes is not a bubble. London has less all-in income tax than NYC when you add state and federal tax. The US economy is more than fine. Again : a marginal, speculative effect on the Gini is irrelevant and not worth 10% of your currency, increasing taxes or other economic solutions exist to tackle inequality and making everyone poorer is definitely not one of them.
No, it's not about the ratio of low:high skilled labour, it's about the measure of inequality. At the current ratio, wages for the low skilled have been tumbling while, for the country as a whole, they have been rising. Now the govt. has not attempted to address this by increasing welfare/infrastructure spending by taxing the rich, as you suggest, but if they did it would be a bubble. As it stands, it's just left as rising inequality.
The US/Ukraine comparison isn't fair either. I would choose to live in Norway or Finland over the US, especially if I was poor.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in.
Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine.
|
On November 04 2016 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. I'll give a longer response when I get home tonight. The general response though is simply that if there are good and bad immigrants, certainly it doesn't make sense to take a "all immigrants can GTFO" approach, but at the same time an "open the floodgates and let loose the tide of immigrants" is also wrong. It makes perfect sense to have a strict but not un-nuanced immigration policy.
Sure, take your time. And precisely. The former approach is exactly what we've seen from Amber Rudd et al. We agree it is wrong and damaging, and in fact, outright undemocratic insofar as the mandate for Brexit was too weak to grant such a radical stance.
On the other hand, we now have a policy which while less than ideal, has in fact carried small benefits for the last 10 years according to the government, and whose withdrawal is currently putting our economy under a lot of strain.
|
On November 04 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in. Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine.
Why do you emphasise 'the'? IIRC they avoid use of 'the Ukraine' to dissociate themselves from the USSR.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Because people make a big deal out of it when it literally doesn't matter. There are no articles (e.g. "the") in Russian but at the same time it's a big deal in the US for some reason, with some people using "the" and some not using it. Just a bit of subtle mockery, nothing to see here.
|
On November 04 2016 02:07 bardtown wrote:
No, it's not about the ratio of low:high skilled labour, it's about the measure of inequality. At the current ratio, wages for the low skilled have been tumbling while, for the country as a whole, they have been rising. Now the govt. has not attempted to address this by increasing welfare/infrastructure spending by taxing the rich, as you suggest, but if they did it would be a bubble. As it stands, it's just left as rising inequality.
After your earlier multiplication and currency fiascos I'll take my math over yours, with no disrespect, but again, you're mistaking Schengen for globalisation. If you're taking a long-term, 20 year view on the economic benefits of Brexit, the correct policy response is to invest in education so as to make more domestic workers skilled, rather than fighting a race to the bottom in low-marging sectors, many of which will be automated. Think teach a man how to fish.
The US/Ukraine comparison isn't fair either. I would choose to live in Norway or Finland over the US, especially if I was poor.
Erhm, these are countries with 60-65% all-in income tax, I thought you said rising taxes were a bubble exactly one post earlier ?
Mathematically, again, countries are concerned with growth level, before its distribution. It's just standard economic theory that you place yourself in a 'risk neutral world' ( no risk aversion premium ) to evaluate your outcomes. Morally right or wrong, confer standard textbooks. That has very little to do with Brexit.
|
On November 04 2016 02:13 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in. Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine. Why do you emphasise 'the'? IIRC they avoid use of 'the Ukraine' to dissociate themselves from the USSR.
It took us another 10 pages to agree, but my girlfriend is Russian/Ukrainian/British and she says Ukraine as well, quoting that very reason.
|
On November 04 2016 02:19 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 02:07 bardtown wrote:
No, it's not about the ratio of low:high skilled labour, it's about the measure of inequality. At the current ratio, wages for the low skilled have been tumbling while, for the country as a whole, they have been rising. Now the govt. has not attempted to address this by increasing welfare/infrastructure spending by taxing the rich, as you suggest, but if they did it would be a bubble. As it stands, it's just left as rising inequality.
After your earlier multiplication and currency fiascos I'll take my math over yours, with no disrespect, but again, you're mistaking Schengen for globalisation. If you're taking a long-term, 20 year view on the economic benefits of Brexit, the correct policy response is to invest in education so as to make more domestic workers skilled, rather than fighting a race to the bottom in low-marging sectors, many of which will be automated. Think teach a man how to fish. Show nested quote +
The US/Ukraine comparison isn't fair either. I would choose to live in Norway or Finland over the US, especially if I was poor.
Erhm, these are countries with 60-65% all-in income tax, I thought you said rising taxes were a bubble exactly one post earlier ? Mathematically, again, countries are concerned with growth level, before its distribution. It's just standard economic theory that you place yourself in a 'risk neutral world' ( no risk aversion premium ) to evaluate your outcomes. Morally right or wrong, confer standard textbooks. That has very little to do with Brexit.
Your calculations have been consistently atrocious when you are even talking about the right measures. BoE today predicted inflation of 2.7% so your 6-10% prediction is off by a factor of 2-4. And your assertion that their previous prediction of 2.5% would at least double to 5% was also completely wrong.
My point about Nordic countries vs. the US is that they prioritise addressing inequality vs. attracting businesses. Free movement is unsustainable for them, too, and Scandinavians are likely to be among the first to follow the UK out of the EU/single market.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 04 2016 02:20 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 02:13 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in. Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine. Why do you emphasise 'the'? IIRC they avoid use of 'the Ukraine' to dissociate themselves from the USSR. It took us another 10 pages to agree, but my girlfriend is Russian/Ukrainian/British and she says Ukraine as well, quoting that very reason.
I use "Ukraine" as well, but I wouldn't have used "the Ukraine" thirty years ago either. In Russian it's just a non-issue and I mostly just see it as a contention that is more fun to poke fun at than actually relevant to anything.
|
On November 04 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in. Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine.
Respectfully I'm not sure I understand the question. Like many in this country I'm a millionaire in hryvnias, but I'm certainly not moving to Kiev anytime soon. All I'm saying is when trying to affect the moments of a statistical distribution, you move the first order ( average/median level ) first, before tackling the second/third orders ( variance, skew, the markers of inequality ). This is the same as saying you walk a flight of stairs up from the bottom one. It's common sense as recessions hit the poorest the most.
( We can then turn the focus on the dodgy things you'd have to have done in order to become a billionaire in the Ukraine... )
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 04 2016 02:26 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:48 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:40 bardtown wrote:On November 04 2016 01:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote:In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail. Excerpts that looked salient : ' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)' 'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.' www.gov.ukIt would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report. Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration." You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad. I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here. I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ). The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones. But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless. Common sense. The study does not suggest that free movement is good, it suggests that there is a small net benefit to immigration as a whole with high skilled immigration counteracting unskilled immigration. If you limit unhelpful immigration then you improve the margin. Also, 'net' benefit is not the most useful measure because it does not address the issue of inequality. Bardtown, this is one of your weaker points. I'm saying if it's not broken ( and you gonna pay £100 to do so ), don't fix it. But it is broken. Immigration is driving inequality when it needn't do so if we only had the capacity to stop free movement of unskilled labour. So this is very interesting. Basically I am saying I'd rather have higher aggregate numbers even at the expense of slightly more inequality, because ultimately a rising tide lifts all boats. Think the US instead of Ukraine ; I know which country I'd rather live in. Would you rather be a billionaire in the Ukraine or a peasant in the US? I know I'd rather be the billionaire, even if I did have to put up with dealing with all the things there is to dislike about life in the Ukraine. Respectfully I'm not sure I understand the question. Like many in this country I'm a millionaire in hryvnias, but I'm certainly not moving to Kiev anytime soon. All I'm saying is when trying to affect the moments of a statistical distribution, you move the first order ( average/median level ) first, before tackling the second/third orders ( variance, skew, the markers of inequality ). This is the same as saying you walk a flight of stairs up from the bottom one. It's common sense as recessions hit the poorest the most. ( We can then turn the focus on the dodgy things you'd have to have done in order to become a billionaire in the Ukraine... )
In terms of policy I mostly agree with the "a rising tide lifts all boats" line in principle, and that sometimes wealth generation takes priority over minimizing inequality. But my small point is that you may very well want to be on the top of the Ukraine curve than on the mid-low end of the US curve.
(More to come when I finish my work day; minor points for now.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
