Their analysis is so facile to border on the farsical. Second and third order effects are not addressed. All kinds of assumptions are made requiring the current state being set in stone (except the possibility to cut pensions/welfare). Nothing qualitative is considered (it's all about the GDP or contributions to the pension system). Assimilation (increasingly less feasible and less necessary to incoming populations for decades as demographics change) is either considered a non-issue or sidestepped altogether as not mattering (so "UK" could just be any random plot of land in the world, and just the bottom end matters).
"Migrant wages are too low. Aria Babu , Editor at Works in Progress, also observed that the lowest wage group earns below minimum wage, which is illegal. Any decent visa scheme for workers would stop that"
Being paid below minimum wage happens all the time with natives all around Europe, so no, "any decent visa scheme" wont necessarily stop that for immigrants either.
"The full-time minimum wage is now 70% of median income, so it is very misleading to describe them as low-wage migrants"
Getting paid minimum wage and getting it at a full-time job is not the same. For how many is this the case? And if the median income barely helps make ends meet with today's rent, food costs, energy, inflation, etc, perhaps 70% of it is indeed "low-wage" (and even 100% is not cutting it). And how many work vs not working or only ocassionally/part-time?
> It was noted that Scotland is 10% foreign-born, whereas England is 20% - having so many people around from your own country breeds complacency or resistance to assimilating.
No shit. And how much of the Scottish "assimilation" is performative/token (married in a kilt), versus deep rooted?
I would much rather someone stick to the quantitative instead of some nebulous qualitative statement.
>Assimilation (increasingly less feasible and less necessary to incoming populations for decades as demographics change) is either considered a non-issue or sidestepped altogether as not mattering (so "UK" could just be any random plot of land in the world, and just the bottom end matters).
Where is any depth of analysis here? You've made assertions without backing or data here. Assimilation isn't feasible? According to who? It certainly might not be but you've not made any researched points here.
Of course you would attach a meme. I'm not surprised - I would argue that this is exactly why we elect the politicians we have, memes and soundbites are what sell with people like you.
This is the level of depth of analysis that you're used to. I only wish I could say I'm surprised but it's par for the course.
"Rather than asking what tax change you want to implement to determine its impact, it asks what effect you want to have, and it will suggest the tax changes you need to make. For example, you can say the Treasury intends to raise an extra £8 billion from taxation but not impact anyone under the age of 27 who has children but doesn’t own their own house and for everyone who does get impacted you don’t want them to lose more than a certain percentage of their purchasing power. You then get suggestions for how to get there. The incredible benefit of this is that you can create more equitable tax policy because you don’t have to punish or reward any one group of taxpayers more harshly than others."
Wow, this sounds interesting! It might be useful, in a few decades, after the bureaucracy has been thoroughly trimmed back and government programs have mostly been forbidden from sucking the wealth out of small businesses and communities in order to redistribute it to educated elites, administrators, and bureaucratic initiatives built to monopolize class power.
For now we should probably just reduce all taxes, everywhere, on everyone, and let those privileged managers (administrators, therapists, agency directors, financiers, professors, researchers, journalists, politicians) find honest work with real social value. Letting the ordinary people who produce economic value keep their wealth in their homes and communities seems like a clear win for me. As I say, once central governments are radically reformed and the technocracy is neutered this kind of tool could be very useful for limited application.
Denmark and NL have done the analysis on the fiscal impact of immigration. The answer is exactly you'd expect - immigration from culturally and economically similar countries can be positive, but those Deliveroo drivers ain't funding anyone's pension.
Of course you would attach a meme. I'm not surprised - I would argue that this is exactly why we elect the politicians we have, memes and soundbites are what sell with people like you.
This is the level of depth of analysis that you're used to. I only wish I could say I'm surprised but it's par for the course.
I think the objection to the OBR "low wage migrant worker" is basically wrong. It's not true that "the lowest wage group earns below minimum wage" - the low wage group earns half average *earnings*, i.e. hourly wage x number of hours worked. According to this - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/realtimeinformationstatisticsreferencetablenonseasonallyadjusted - Table 5 - median pay is £2,460 per month. Half that is £1,230. That same table says that 20th percentile pay is £1,183. So the low pay scenario is for someone paid an amount that is above what 20% of the population are paid. That strikes me as pretty reasonable as an example scenario for a low paid worker.
"I know taking out this credit card will put me in debt, but that's the same as my existing credit cards, so it won't make any difference."
Their analysis is so facile to border on the farsical. Second and third order effects are not addressed. All kinds of assumptions are made requiring the current state being set in stone (except the possibility to cut pensions/welfare). Nothing qualitative is considered (it's all about the GDP or contributions to the pension system). Assimilation (increasingly less feasible and less necessary to incoming populations for decades as demographics change) is either considered a non-issue or sidestepped altogether as not mattering (so "UK" could just be any random plot of land in the world, and just the bottom end matters).
"Migrant wages are too low. Aria Babu , Editor at Works in Progress, also observed that the lowest wage group earns below minimum wage, which is illegal. Any decent visa scheme for workers would stop that"
Being paid below minimum wage happens all the time with natives all around Europe, so no, "any decent visa scheme" wont necessarily stop that for immigrants either.
"The full-time minimum wage is now 70% of median income, so it is very misleading to describe them as low-wage migrants"
Getting paid minimum wage and getting it at a full-time job is not the same. For how many is this the case? And if the median income barely helps make ends meet with today's rent, food costs, energy, inflation, etc, perhaps 70% of it is indeed "low-wage" (and even 100% is not cutting it). And how many work vs not working or only ocassionally/part-time?
> It was noted that Scotland is 10% foreign-born, whereas England is 20% - having so many people around from your own country breeds complacency or resistance to assimilating.
No shit. And how much of the Scottish "assimilation" is performative/token (married in a kilt), versus deep rooted?
I would much rather someone stick to the quantitative instead of some nebulous qualitative statement.
>Assimilation (increasingly less feasible and less necessary to incoming populations for decades as demographics change) is either considered a non-issue or sidestepped altogether as not mattering (so "UK" could just be any random plot of land in the world, and just the bottom end matters).
Where is any depth of analysis here? You've made assertions without backing or data here. Assimilation isn't feasible? According to who? It certainly might not be but you've not made any researched points here.
> I would much rather someone stick to the quantitative instead of some nebulous qualitative statement.
Of course you would. Which is why we're in the mess that we are.
> You've made assertions without backing or data here.
https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED606/63f0480e19897.jpeg
> Assimilation isn't feasible? According to who?
According to empirical results from close to 50 years.
Of course you would attach a meme. I'm not surprised - I would argue that this is exactly why we elect the politicians we have, memes and soundbites are what sell with people like you.
This is the level of depth of analysis that you're used to. I only wish I could say I'm surprised but it's par for the course.
"Rather than asking what tax change you want to implement to determine its impact, it asks what effect you want to have, and it will suggest the tax changes you need to make. For example, you can say the Treasury intends to raise an extra £8 billion from taxation but not impact anyone under the age of 27 who has children but doesn’t own their own house and for everyone who does get impacted you don’t want them to lose more than a certain percentage of their purchasing power. You then get suggestions for how to get there. The incredible benefit of this is that you can create more equitable tax policy because you don’t have to punish or reward any one group of taxpayers more harshly than others."
Wow, this sounds interesting! It might be useful, in a few decades, after the bureaucracy has been thoroughly trimmed back and government programs have mostly been forbidden from sucking the wealth out of small businesses and communities in order to redistribute it to educated elites, administrators, and bureaucratic initiatives built to monopolize class power.
For now we should probably just reduce all taxes, everywhere, on everyone, and let those privileged managers (administrators, therapists, agency directors, financiers, professors, researchers, journalists, politicians) find honest work with real social value. Letting the ordinary people who produce economic value keep their wealth in their homes and communities seems like a clear win for me. As I say, once central governments are radically reformed and the technocracy is neutered this kind of tool could be very useful for limited application.
Denmark and NL have done the analysis on the fiscal impact of immigration. The answer is exactly you'd expect - immigration from culturally and economically similar countries can be positive, but those Deliveroo drivers ain't funding anyone's pension.
The two conflicting graphs reminded me of Feral Finisters comment in your post about the Somali Tik Tok
“Humans first reach their conclusions (
them tribe not my tribe!)” This why my tribe right.
Of course you would attach a meme. I'm not surprised - I would argue that this is exactly why we elect the politicians we have, memes and soundbites are what sell with people like you.
This is the level of depth of analysis that you're used to. I only wish I could say I'm surprised but it's par for the course.
I think the objection to the OBR "low wage migrant worker" is basically wrong. It's not true that "the lowest wage group earns below minimum wage" - the low wage group earns half average *earnings*, i.e. hourly wage x number of hours worked. According to this - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/realtimeinformationstatisticsreferencetablenonseasonallyadjusted - Table 5 - median pay is £2,460 per month. Half that is £1,230. That same table says that 20th percentile pay is £1,183. So the low pay scenario is for someone paid an amount that is above what 20% of the population are paid. That strikes me as pretty reasonable as an example scenario for a low paid worker.
Another goodie !