EU Brexit thread

[Winstonm]

No, I'm saying the highrises that we had in the UK were built to house council tenants in the 60s, degenerated into slums and this has .

 

To Winstonm - in the UK you ARE theoretically entitled to housing and this is what causes some of the resentment. People are housed by the councils in order of priority subject to availability, and historically immigrants arriving with kids (something which ups your priority) go into the queue ahead of childless locals, meaning the locals never get a council house.

 

Thanks. That is good to understand. I could see how that would cause a grievance for childless locals.

[onoway]

I found this to be interesting reading https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533099/Statutory_Homelessness_and_Prevention_and_Relief_Statistical_Release_January_to_March_2016.pdf

 

If you look up the UK government stats for rough sleeping in GB they show that the number of people has approximately doubled since 2010 (both in and out of London) to the fall of last year; according to newspaper articles ( no idea where they got their stats) the number has increased substantially since then. They have run articles about businesses putting various devices in place to prevent people from sleeping in sheltered areas in the streets around their businesses.

[onoway]

Someone a while ago asked what research there was to support the concept of crowding leading to problems for society. The original research I was referring to was admittedly dealing with overcrowded animals. Calhoun’s study of laboratory rats found correlations between population density and increased aggression, disruptions in mating patterns and maternal activity, and higher rates of illness (Calhoun 1962).

 

There have been studies since then which have dealt with the effects of living in crowded conditions have on kids. Some quotes: Lack of privacy can result in stress, difficult social interactions, and behavioral problems for all household members (Evans et al. 1998). Parents in overcrowded homes tend to show less responsive parenting (Caldwell and Bradley 1984), which may lower parents’ participation in parent-teacher organizations at school, monitoring of children’s academic performance, and help with children’s schoolwork. Children in crowded homes have more behavioral problems in school (Evans et al. 2001), which can extend to other social contexts.

 

A study by people in McGill University on the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza strip was fairly damning. http://prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/farah_0004_6.htm

 

Or read the reports on the refugee detention camp in Nauru that came out today.

 

To dismiss the findings as irrelevant to situations outside a refugee camp is to my mind the same thing as denying the evidence of a cancer beginning because it has not yet reached the point of being fatal.

[fromageGB]

I can't, of course. But when I said "middle-class", I didn't realise it was an insult, let alone an insult in the same league as "racist" and "xenophobic". Since you seem to find it so, I apologise.

You are, apparently, racist if you voted for Brexit. I think that is now the definition ; just live with it.

[fromageGB]

The primary problem in Western-Europe is ageing of the population. This causes economic problems, health problems and social problems. Immigration is a fast, inexpensive, and relatively easy way to rejuvenate the population. So, your "problem" is, in reality, actually closer to "the solution".

That is not the main problem in England. Yes, the population is ageing, but the bigger problem is overpopulation, and an ever-increasing population. If the net population fell, the country would be a more pleasant place to live for the remainder. Increasing GDP, which seems to be a generally accepted target, in reality means increasing numbers. I would prefer a reducing GDP. Quality of life is more important.

[cherdano]

Someone a while ago asked what research there was to support the concept of crowding leading to problems for society. The original research I was referring to was admittedly dealing with overcrowded animals. Calhoun’s study of laboratory rats found correlations between population density and increased aggression, disruptions in mating patterns and maternal activity, and higher rates of illness (Calhoun 1962).

 

There have been studies since then which have dealt with the effects of living in crowded conditions have on kids. Some quotes: Lack of privacy can result in stress, difficult social interactions, and behavioral problems for all household members (Evans et al. 1998). Parents in overcrowded homes tend to show less responsive parenting (Caldwell and Bradley 1984), which may lower parents’ participation in parent-teacher organizations at school, monitoring of children’s academic performance, and help with children’s schoolwork. Children in crowded homes have more behavioral problems in school (Evans et al. 2001), which can extend to other social contexts.

 

A study by people in McGill University on the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza strip was fairly damning. http://prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/farah_0004_6.htm

 

Or read the reports on the refugee detention camp in Nauru that came out today.

 

To dismiss the findings as irrelevant to situations outside a refugee camp is to my mind the same thing as denying the evidence of a cancer beginning because it has not yet reached the point of being fatal.

 

Now that's the dumbest pseudo-intelligent post ever written on BBF. Congratulations.

[Trinidad]

That is not the main problem in England. Yes, the population is ageing, but the bigger problem is overpopulation, and an ever-increasing population. If the net population fell, the country would be a more pleasant place to live for the remainder. Increasing GDP, which seems to be a generally accepted target, in reality means increasing numbers. I would prefer a reducing GDP. Quality of life is more important.

Fair enough. "Money doesn't make one happy; space and clean air do." I have some (actually quite a bit of) sympathy for that point of view. But then you will have to accept a lower standard of living, a lower pension (or a pension at the age of 75), and a lower quality health care.

 

If you decrease the GDP per inhabitant then that simply means that there is less money.

 

Steven's point was that immigrants are the problem. I pointed out that they provide tomorrow's GDP. And I don't know whether Steven is as eager as you to decrease his standard of living.

 

Rik

[StevenG]

Steven's point was that immigrants are the problem. I pointed out that they provide tomorrow's GDP. And I don't know whether Steven is as eager as you to decrease his standard of living.

No, my point is that population growth is a big problem in a society that seems to me to be dysfunctional, consuming more than it creates. If population increases, and our productive capacity doesn't, we need to import more, and our balance of trade figures demonstrate that we cannot pay for these imports by exporting. Effective we pay by selling our companies to foreigners. This is not sustainable. Immigration is a cause of population growth, so it needs to be curtailed, as things stand at the moment. I don't differentiate between people; to me the effect on the economy of a returning British citizen is the same as that of an equivalently skilled foreigner.

 

Also, increasing GDP by increasing population is pointless. In practice GDP per capita is barely rising, even though GDP itself appears to be gaining significantly. I don't even consider GDP to be a good measure of economic well-being, since it conflates genuine wealth-creation (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) with economic activity of no real value. (No, that's not the right word, but I can't find a way of expressing what I mean. Of course a hospital employee is of value, but it is social value, not economic.) An increase in GDP driven by the service sector is, I believe, an illusion.

[Zelandakh]

You are, apparently, racist if you voted for Brexit. I think that is now the definition ; just live with it.

As has been pointed out already many times, that the campaign had elements of racism in it and many supporters made racist statements at various times is not the same as saying that everyone voting Leave is racist. Not everyone that voted for Hitler was fascist either, nor is everyone supporting Trump any of the -isms associated with him. People vote the way they do for many reasons. If I heard a Brexit supporter say: "Yes, some of the campaigning on our side was racist" then my immediate reaction would be to think that person was very likely not. And many Brexit supporters have made such criticisms. On the other hand, when I see Brexit supporters saying that everything was ok and it is simply sour grapes on the Remain side that these things are even suggested, well then I get a rather different impression.

 

 

That is not the main problem in England. Yes, the population is ageing, but the bigger problem is overpopulation, and an ever-increasing population. If the net population fell, the country would be a more pleasant place to live for the remainder.

Would it? With fewer workers per pensioner the current model would be impossible even without factoring in the damage to the economy from Brexit. Would you prefer a. to remove all State support for pensioners; b. to increase the retirement age to 90; c. to (at least) double the tax burden on workers; or d. to deny pensioners medical attention to make sure they die off more quickly? Which option do you feel results in a more pleasant place for the remainder?

[Vampyr]

In some cities they are called highrises. In other places, they are called fancy condominiums.

 

Not here, where we are building (and live in) the smallest dwellings in Europe. Most of what we are building are very small apartments which cost at least £400,000, for people whose wages are close to the lowest in Western Europe.

 

There are also large flats costing millions being built, but these are usually purchased by foreigners and kept empty.

[Trinidad]

Not here, where we are building (and live in) the smallest dwellings in Europe. Most of what we are building are very small apartments which cost at least £400,000, for people whose wages are close to the lowest in Western Europe.ty.

Now, wouldn't that have been a reason to vote against a Brexit and to start working in another EU country?

 

Rik

 

P.S. Comparing salaries between countries is a silly thing to do. As an example, salaries in Sweden are very low, since the employer pays a massive amount of tax. The employee pays relatively little. In the Netherlands, the salaries are much higher, but after tax it doesn't look so good anymore. And if you then think of what the government provides for your taxes in Sweden, Sweden starts to look pretty good...

[fromageGB]

Would it? ...

All of these, to a degree. Certainly I believe the NHS policy is wrong, and it should be recognised that limited funding means expenditure per individual should be capped. If someone's age-related illness progresses beyond this point they should be allowed to die. More importantly, many other age-related policies are wrong, such as publicly funded final salary pension schemes and the regulations that force pension funds to "invest" in non-productive goverment bonds rather than private business.

[mike777]

I dont understand the problem. I dont need any shelves for canned tomatoes. If we have 60 million immigrants or whatever the number is then 700,000 cans of tomatoes are not enough. I need more canned tomatoes! If i am getting 700,000 cans of tomatoes at prices set in a contract 40 years ago...I am rich, rich, rich.

 

Do posters realize how many tomatoes 60 million or whatever the number of immigranta are going to consume!

[shyams]

I dont understand the problem. I dont need any shelves for canned tomatoes. If we have 60 million immigrants or whatever the number is then 700,000 cans of tomatoes are not enough. I need more canned tomatoes! If i am getting 700,000 cans of tomatoes at prices set in a contract 40 years ago...I am rich, rich, rich.

 

Do posters realize how many tomatoes 60 million or whatever the number of immigranta are going to consume!

Didn't mean to upvote. Instead, I meant to say "Huh?"

[1eyedjack]

Didn't mean to upvote. Instead, I meant to say "Huh?"

Yeah - white noise.

[mike777]

Not here, where we are building (and live in) the smallest dwellings in Europe. Most of what we are building are very small apartments which cost at least £400,000, for people whose wages are close to the lowest in Western Europe.

 

There are also large flats costing millions being built, but these are usually purchased by foreigners and kept empty.

 

 

We discussed this issue before, there are many places outside of London that can be had for less than 400K euros. If you cannot afford to live in London, then move! It is useless to have a job and still not be able to have a roof over your head. This will reduce the demand for housing and reduce the prices. There are plenty of open spaces to build on, people just say no, there are plenty of places to build up, but people say no, there are plenty of industrial and office space that can be converted to live in but people say no. i mean rich people are even building under the ground to live, huge underground homes and the response is more regulations to stop them.

 

as for my tomato comments refer back to earlier in this thread. :)

[shyams]

as for my tomato comments refer back to earlier in this thread. :)

There is something called stretching the methaphor. And you just did! Beyond it's breaking point!

[Vampyr]

Didn't mean to upvote. Instead, I meant to say "Huh?"

 

I meant to upvote!

[Vampyr]

We discussed this issue before, there are many places outside of London that can be had for less than 400K euros. If you cannot afford to live in London, then move! It is useless to have a job and still not be able to have a roof over your head. This will reduce the demand for housing and reduce the prices. There are plenty of open spaces to build on, people just say no, there are plenty of places to build up, but people say no, there are plenty of industrial and office space that can be converted to live in but people say no. i mean rich people are even building under the ground to live, huge underground homes and the response is more regulations to stop them.

 

as for my tomato comments refer back to earlier in this thread. :)

 

Rich people are not building huge underground homes, they are building huge underground extensions and putting in home cinemas and indoor pools.

 

As far as moving out of London, well you say it would reduce the demand for housing and the prices; fin a but it is not happening. The problem is mainly jobs, but also many people prefer to remain a same-nationality ghetto. And I imagine there are many other reasons.

 

Perhaps after Brexit we will return to doing our own manufacturing and there will be jobs all around the country. In my dreams, I know.

[mike777]

Fair enough V. The solution to the problem of not being able to afford to live in London is still to move.

 

 

If you have a job in london but cannot afford a roof over your head then move!

 

 

If you are an immigrant and cannot find a job or a roof over your head in London then move!

 

I suppose some alternatives are throw the govt out of London and replace it with one that is more job friendly/home builder friendly or give everyone a check to live on, an idea that is catching on with the progressive movement.

 

 

In any event it is up to you Brits to pick which pathway or tomatoes you prefer, good luck.

[Al_U_Card]

Are we in trouble yet? I mean, Brexit was supposed to lead to ruin and GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTABILITY or did they say "might"?

 

Now, any major institution or central bank that flushed its CDSs etc would.

[Vampyr]

Are we in trouble yet? I mean, Brexit was supposed to lead to ruin and GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTABILITY or did they say "might"?

 

Now, any major institution or central bank that flushed its CDSs etc would.

 

Brexit will not happen for a few years.

[Al_U_Card]

Fortunately, then, we will have time to adapt and the markets have probably already priced-in the event so it may not be so bad after all.

[shyams]

Fortunately, then, we will have time to adapt and the markets have probably already priced-in the event so it may not be so bad after all.

We are adopting the Eurozone model :). We push away any decision involving pain/downside further into the future in the fond belief that a problem ignored is a problem solved.

 

After all, as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. And obviously the dead don't care about the problems of the living.

[Al_U_Card]

We are adopting the Eurozone model :). We push away any decision involving pain/downside further into the future in the fond belief that a problem ignored is a problem solved.

 

After all, as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. And obviously the dead don't care about the problems of the living.

Are you dead sure about that? Lol Indeed it looks like they know that the next "collapse" is due soon so they just set up the bail-ins and can now wait for the inevitable.