Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sheer Heart Attack

Members
  • Posts

    1,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sheer Heart Attack

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tyneside

Recent Profile Visitors

1,122 profile views
  1. Awww, the person who can't tell the difference between a genuine xenophobe and someone who wants controlled immigration so it benefits both countries is trying to be all grown up and provide a grown up response. Good on you, dugsbody. Proud of you my boy. What a little champ! 🤪
  2. I have explained plenty of times that I do not want to close the borders nor do I want 100% open borders. Comprehension is not a strong point of yours, clearly. And this tragic example of a reply is typical of your standard back-foot, worn-out argument tactics - you're out of your depth so you play the man and not the ball. So much so that you've sneaked in an implication that I am against foreigners. If you can't hold an argument together and if you can't rebut points which go against your own point of view, this is the wrong place to be, mate. Just saying 😍
  3. HPCers, particularly Remoaner HPCers, are unable to apologise for or acknowledge any flaw in their logic no matter when presented with evidence.
  4. You are correct - I haven't supplied a single one. There are advantages and disadvantages to immigration and, like the rest of the world, I struggle to find a balance but I am certain personally FoM isn't it. My inability to come up with a solution however does not prevent me from seeing problems with the existing and former systems. From the OECD, "human development is especially at risk when skilled emigration affects the education and health sectors." If you want a grown-up debate, I respectfully suggest that you and your like stop ignoring/denying the reference evidence I have pointed to on multiple occasions that emigration from poorer countries does not cause problems in those countries. I haven't even addressed the effect on wages in receiving countries so eloquently put by Stuart Rose, low-wage fanatic and prominent Remoaner before the referendum. Nor have I addressed the effect on house prices or rental prices from a rapidly-growing population - bit surprising that this is skimmed over on a forum about the unfairness of very high house prices. You may think my care and concern for developing and poor countries is a "stretch on reality to Tenet level" but it's clear that I do actually care about it and you don't give a shit. "I'm alright, Jack" so screw the rest of you. PS. And calling me "dull" and then appealing for a "grown-up debate" is a little pot and kettle, mate.
  5. Exactly. One of the so-called benefits of Brexit was a great reset - an idea that we would stop relying on cheap imported labour to train up our own citizens. It was a lie and this is a massive missed opportunity.
  6. You have not even addressed my argument let alone debunked it - talking with you is like talking with yelims but without the hystrionics. In the interests of balance (a concept apparently alien to you)... "Emigration can have a positive impact on development. Remittances sent by migrants to developing countries – U.S. $436 billion in 2014 – represent more than three times the global flows of official development assistance. This stable source of financing can help reduce poverty, spur consumption, foster entrepreneurship, and increase households’ investments in education and health. Diasporas can also send collective remittances to finance local development projects or help rebuild countries after natural disasters, which is what happened after the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal. Migrants send not only money, but also social remittances. When they travel home or communicate with their families in their countries of origin, migrants often transfer the values and behaviours observed in host countries, precipitating a decline in fertility rates, increased women empowerment or a growing demand for accountable institutions. Finally, the emigration of tertiary-educated individuals can have a brain-gain effect by encouraging those left behind to study longer, hence increasing the stock of human capital. Yet, migration can also generate negative effects for origin countries. Even though developing countries can benefit in the long run from the emigration of skilled people, the brain drain can prevent poor countries from investing in human capital. Human development is especially at risk when skilled emigration affects the education and health sectors. Although remittances help families, migration outflows can create labour shortages, especially in rural areas. This lost-labour effect can sometimes, like in Sahelian countries, exacerbate food insecurity. Emigration also has social costs. Family disintegration caused by the departure of one or both parents can in some cases leave children with psychological problems, risking school dropout and even increased violence. In the long term, emigration can even turn into a poverty trap: because emigration helps relieve the pressure on the labour market and remittances constitute a social safety net, governments may not see the need to reform labour markets and social welfare systems." Source: OECD (not the foam-at-the-mouth Brexiteers you might imagine, hey?). Looks like you've been well and truly debunked by the OECD, mate. And, in answer to your question on whether I have a term for Brexiteers who deny that there are zero disadvantages to Brexit, I would call them "foam-at-the-mouth Brexiteers" as above. However, this thread is an echo chamber for whiny Remoaners so I am lone voice of sanity among a crowd of hysterical Remoaners.
  7. You're a piece of work, mate. Interesting how you fail to recognise let alone challenge the evidence I have presented. Remoaner is as Remoaner does.
  8. Yes, this is quite surprising but, by using this measure, Nicola Sturgeon is being quite canny because there are some doubts as to the usefulness of GDP per capita overall.. Interesting critique of the value of GDP per capita as a measure here. You might also find Politico's breakdown of why the Irish GDP per capita is so misleading.
  9. Suspect what you will, Staffsknot. I have presented this disgruntled Remoaner echo chamber of a thread with evidence of the damage FoM does to poorer countries and the mass emigration of a class of professional (in this case, RNs) from a poor country much further away. Your point blank refusal to acknowledge the damage done by Filipino nurse migration demonstrates the moral vaccum in which you operate with your dismissal of a valid argument as "strawman". Very cynical but very see-through. Ability to follow a thread is also not a strong point of yours as, earlier in this thread, I stated that I have no problem with migrants sending cash back to their home countries and families. A great many of the number of EU nationals signing on to stay in the UK will be from poorer countries and they're not looking to return anytime soon. That's a hammerblow to the hearts of the development of these nations. Britain is a parasite for the best of the best poorer overseas countries have to offer instead of investing in training our own people up. Remoaner Reaction - shrug shoulders, deny reality, attack the messenger. Yawn - when's World War 3 happening by the way?
  10. Anecdotal I know but a broker told me the other week that 35-40% deposits were now required on office premises by lenders.
  11. I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the Filipinos dying without medical treatment in the rural areas of that country. Good call.
  12. My point throughout is that immigration, howsoever controlled, has positive and negative consequences. In some countries like Croatia and Poland, it has caused a substantial reduction in the size of the working population. In the Phillipines (although much of it is self-inflicted), people may be dying because of it. I have not argued my point of view as being based in altruism - I am merely stating that those who believe in FoM/limitless immigration do so from a point of view of not giving a shit about the negative effects it has here in the UK or for the countries immigrants come to us from. Your comments above confirm that I am correct because you don't deem either worthy of serious investigation or concern. FWIW, I don't think the Government have any intention of reducing immigration numbers in the coming years. It's not a prerequisite for others to have time for my beliefs or values. On a similar topic, I once read that the way to cure endemic poverty and lack of opportunity in Sunderland was to move its entire population to London. I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that but it does have a parallel with the 6 billion you mention coming across to Europe. Do you have a maximum number of people you'd want to be given permission to live and work in the UK?
  13. 1) I don't oppose bright people coming to the UK. In my previous posts, I mentioned that we should try to attract the best of the best from around the world to benefit the country. In the case of movement of population in the UK, they are already citizens of the country and they are already counted into the figures. The population of the UK has not massively increased in the last 15 years from people moving to one part of the UK to another part of the UK. I respectfully suggest that you read my previous posts because you'll understand better my point of view because it seems like you're disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. 2) Again, it is their money and they should do with it what they please. I have just ordered some tech from aliexpress.com. This is the problem with Remoaners who are triggered by any talk of the disadvantages of immigration. The red mist of righteous disgust descends and they think that, if you disagree with them, you want a fortress Britain, huge import tariffs, exchange controls, zero immigration, and so on. That's just not the case. Anyway, bringing up the Phillipines is an interesting point. According to Wikipedia... "The Philippines is the largest exporter of nurses in the world supplying 25% of all overseas nurses. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study reported that one of every six foreign-born nurses in the OECD countries is from the Philippines. Of all employed Filipino RNs, roughly 85% are working overseas." Nursing work in the Phillipines is not great with "low wages, poor benefit packages (and) fewer jobs available". The government there seem to be making a rod for their own back and it's obviously not our fault that compensation is so low and opportunities so scarse. But "(a)ccording to many Filipinos working in hospitals, the most educated and skilled nurses are the first to go abroad...it is clear that there is a short supply of the most skilled nurses who go abroad. "As a result, operating rooms are often staffed by novice nurses, and nurses with more experience work extremely long hours. As skilled nurses decline in the urban areas, nurses from rural areas migrate to hospitals in the cities for better pay. As a result, rural communities experience a drain of health resources. "Stories and studies alike demonstrate that a treatable emergency in the provinces may be fatal because there are no medical professionals to help treat them. In fact, "the number of Filipinos dying without medical attention has been steadily increasing for the last decade." Anyone pretending that attracting, for example, skilled and trained medical staff from poorer countries overseas does not have a negative effect on the country they're leaving is in denial or deluded whether or not the original country "brought it on themselves".
  14. As eluded to in an earlier response, I do not have all the answers to this. There are however three possible positions to take: No immigration Controlled immigration Unlimited immigration Each one has consequences for the immigrant, for the host population, and for the economy and wellbeing of the country an immigrant is leaving and the country the immigrant is coming to. You are correct that FoM will not save brain drain from poorer countries because there are other rich countries like the UK still in the EU. And, forgive me for being selfish, but I would prefer: controlled immigration limited to areas of skill shortage and where the country as a whole can gain an advantage from a particular person being here and a 20-30 year policy from this and successive governments of targeting training and investment in those areas of skill which we currently must plug using labour from abroad so we can reduce our dependence on immigration. I know this will never happen but, if it did, it would improve opportunities and salaries across the UK for every citizen. It would also mean that 300,000 extra people every single year were not competing for homes to buy or rent.
  15. Apologies, slawek. I skim-read your post originally and misread it. I have since changed it so directly answer both questions so please check again.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.