Immigrants dying in the Mediterranean

[Alan Ladd]

Yes I did the math and you are wrong, house prices and pensions do represent most of the wealth increase, and neither are easily accessed, and that increase isn't shared out equally, therefor the wealth increase benefits some but no most and wasn't a benefit derived from high immigration.

 

Pensions are now easy to access thanks to the Tory government.

[L00b]

Yes I did the math and you are wrong, house prices and pensions do represent most of the wealth increase, and neither are easily accessed, and that increase isn't shared out equally, therefor the wealth increase benefits some but no most <...>

Show us, then. I've shown you mine above, let's have your method and figures

<therefor the wealth increase> wasn't a benefit derived from high immigration.

I didn't claim it was. Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

Pensions are now easy to access thanks to the Tory government.

 

Only once you reach 55 and even then still not easy to access.

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 14:01 ----------

 

Show us, then. I've shown you mine above, let's have your method and figures

I didn't claim it was?

 

You tried to claim that during a time of high immigration the average Britain had become wealthier and they haven't, the wealthy have become wealthier and the poor have become poorer.

[Zamo]

In the UK context alone, since 2004 (a non-limitative but representative example, as I can't be @rsed checking over a longer time period or EU-wide (but fill your boots)), immigration stats courtesy of Migration Watch (to make sure the picture is as bleakly pro-UKIP as possible ) and personal wealth statistics courtesy of the ONS (see Figure 6, use linked Excel spreadsheet) disagree with you: over 200k migrants per year average, net wealth per household (logically including longer-term migrant households over time) up 4.1% per year average.

 

So, the statistical facts are that, since 2004, (i) mass immigration into the UK occurs at an average rate of 200k per year and rising, and (ii) the wealth of the average UK household has increased at an average rate of 4.1% year on year over the same time period.

 

Accordingly, I can just as well (and legitimately) infer from the above that the 'haves' have nothing to fear about sharing their lot with the 'have nots'.

 

Whether we are richer now than in 2004 is irrelevant. All we need to know is that screening immigrants would undoubtedly have made us richer than we now are.

 

In essence we are behaving just like the migrants trying to come here in that we are simply trying to survive and to survive in as much comfort as possible. The same quintessential human nature drives them to try and come here and those already here to try and stop them.

 

Most people, when considering what to do with the migrants coming across the Med, simply consider whether they would add or detract from our lot. The obvious answer is they would detract and therefore most people don't want them here. Those who would have us take in the migrants regardless can't argue with the logic of that and therefore resort to the xenophobia and racism ruse. The thinking is that if they label the decision xenophobic then people will reverse their decision to prove they are not! I'm afraid the tactic is a little old and worn now and most people see straight through it.

[L00b]

You tried to claim that during a time of high immigration the average Britain had become wealthier and they haven't, the wealthy have become wealthier and the poor have become poorer.

I didn't "try to claim", since the ONS dataset states it.

 

I simply brought your attention to it and, when you refused to accept it, even explained it further. As you obviously still refuse to accept it, I'm not really sure how to go about trying to progress this discussion with you any further.

 

Your continuous refusal to accept what constitutes independent factual evidence is getting tedious and, frankly, showing you to be either disingenuous or intellectually-challenged. Pick whichever you want, neither is any skin off my nose.

Whether we are richer now than in 2004 is irrelevant.

I disagree (although, to be fair, for it to be entirely relevant to the discussion, the analysis would have to be EU-wide).

 

The (ONS-established) fact that we 'haves' are richer now than in 2004 despite unprecedented levels of immigration of 'have nots' in the same period at least shows that immigration has not prevented us 'haves' from 'getting more'.

 

That goes to the heart of your earlier argument, that the 'haves' sharing their lot with the 'have nots' would indisputably make them poorer: that's not been the case in the UK, so says the ONS.

All we need to know is that screening immigrants would undoubtedly have made us richer than we now are.

And again with the 'indisputably/undoubtedly'

 

I suppose it would be good to know that, i.e. the extent to which restricted immigration could have made us richer than unrestricted immigration (need I remind you in passing that 'unrestricted' is EU-only, it's been pretty restricted for the rest of the world since shortly before 2010, and getting still more restricted for non-EU types from May 1st). But it's your contention to prove, so off you go find some evidence

In essence we are behaving just like the migrants trying to come here in that we are simply trying to survive and to survive in as much comfort as possible. The same quintessential human nature drives them to try and come here and those already here to try and stop them.

Fully agreed, if only because that's elementary human nature.

Most people, when considering what to do with the migrants coming across the Med, simply consider whether they would add or detract from our lot. The obvious answer is they would detract and therefore most people don't want them here. Those who would have us take in the migrants regardless can't argue with the logic of that and therefore resort to the xenophobia and racism ruse. The thinking is that if they label the decision xenophobic then people will reverse their decision to prove they are not! I'm afraid the tactic is a little old and worn now and most people see straight through it.

I don't know why you fixate about the 'xenophobic' adjective, at least so far as I'm concerned: when considering what to do the migrants coming across the Med, I think I've pretty much nailed my colours to the mast a long time back in this thread, i.e. intervene and "sort" their country, to remove the main and core factors driving emigration to rampant levels. That'll be the engineer type in me looking to actually fix the problem, rather than the manager type looking to just shift the problem

 

That can be done in many different ways, some more-cost effective than others, possibly (probably) even cheaper than just putting up figurative walls around fortress Europe for however long the problem endures (for it will endure, until and unless these 'main and core factors' are sorted indeed).

 

I certainly haven't posted or even suggested that the UK or the EU should take however many come across for however long they continue to come.

Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

I didn't "try to claim", since the ONS dataset states it.

 

I simply brought your attention to it and, when you refused to accept it, even explained it further. As you obviously still refuse to accept it, I'm not really sure how to go about trying to progress this discussion with you any further.

 

Your continuous refusal to accept what constitutes independent factual evidence is getting tedious and, frankly, showing you to be either disingenuous or intellectually-challenged. Pick whichever you want, neither is any skin off my nose.

I disagree (although, to be fair, for it to be entirely relevant to the discussion, the analysis would have to be EU-wide).

 

 

It doesn't state anything of the sort.

 

I do accept the data but it doesn't support your stance.

 

You got it wrong, I pointed out and supported it with evidence, and your continuous refusal to accept that you got it wrong is getting tedious and, frankly, showing you to be either disingenuous or intellectually-challenged.

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 14:41 ----------

 

I disagree (although, to be fair, for it to be entirely relevant to the discussion, the analysis would have to be EU-wide).

 

The (ONS-established) fact that we 'haves' are richer now than in 2004 despite unprecedented levels of immigration

 

The data doesn't show anything of the sort, its averaged out therefor shows that some people are wealthier, generally the rich people and most of the increase was because of a property bubble, so on paper they are wealthier but could actually have less to spend on food.

[L00b]

It doesn't state anything of the sort.

 

I do accept the data but it doesn't support your stance.

 

You got it wrong, I pointed out and supported it with evidence, and your continuous refusal to accept that you got it wrong is getting tedious and, frankly, showing you to be either disingenuous or intellectually-challenged.

How truly pathetic a post and comeback, loraward.

[loraward]

How truly pathetic a post and comeback, loraward.

 

Just bouncing the abuse you posted back to you.

 

Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

So the poorest have become poorer during a time of mass immigration.

Edited April 22, 2015 by loraward

[Alan Ladd]

Only once you reach 55 and even then still not easy to access.

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 14:01 ----------

 

 

You tried to claim that during a time of high immigration the average Britain had become wealthier and they haven't, the wealthy have become wealthier and the poor have become poorer.

 

How old do you want to be before you draw your pension, 27?

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 15:08 ----------

 

Just bouncing the abuse you posted back to you.

 

Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

So the poorest have become poorer during a time of mass immigration.

 

On average we are better off by about 7%.

[sgtkate]

Just bouncing the abuse you posted back to you.

 

Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

So the poorest have become poorer during a time of mass immigration.

 

57% POORER?!?!? What on earth...based on what? Earnings against inflation? I'm not questioning you BTW just stunned by the figures. Although I shouldn't be as, well, we have had a Tory government for that time who aren't well known for looking after those on lower incomes.

Edited April 22, 2015 by sgtkate