Saying there wont be a massive legislative push on immigration if we leave is la la crazy talk.

None. It's either a point of principle to them, or they just don't like foreigners.

Its interesting that the number of non EU immigrants coming to the UK, very few are coming for employment or work.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...r-migration-uk

mainly it wouldnt make much sense and the number would be much higher if it was only fiscal transfers. i have very, very briefly skimmed the pdf (http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf) and it says stuff like this:

and has sections on public goods and so on, so im pretty sure im right.

We borrow at 3-3.5%, so contributing 12% more is a positive return.

I genuinely don't know how its difficult to find a way to sell building more schools hospitals and houses because people also call out for those things right now. It should be the labour policy today, though i get their historic difficulty in the area due to the mismanaged building campaign of the Blair years.

Oh man after researching the subject for my dissertation hospital building especially by PFI was soooooo mismanaged.

But in a vacuum people want these things today. They just need to be convinced there is a sustainable investment behind the idea.

As for the other point of course some migrants contribute more than others. No one is surprised by this. Some natives contribute more than others. But you also need many of the low contributing people to facilitate the high contributors.

Cities would grind to a halt if there were not enough cleaners, drivers, bar staff, waiters/tresses, shop workers and so on.

It isn't the person contributing less, it is the job. If the job was filled by a native they still contribute considerably lower than the owner of the bar or shop or whatever. It is built into the system.

The idea we should artificially raise prices of low level jobs and thus harm the poor is insane to me.

I agree with you, but you have been a major drum banger for austerity in the POLUK thread, how do you balance that with borrowing to pay for hospitals etc, which obviously will increase deficit in the short term.

This is because its exceptionally difficult to get a work visa from outside the EU due to bogus "targets" on reducing migration.

So many of those left get in through family visas, student visas, marriage visas and so on.

I have no issue with borrowing to make a good obviously net positive investment.

I just need to be shown how it is a positive investment.

In the case of hospital pfi build contracts for example we lowered the deficit by borrowing off book at ~15% instead of on book at ~6% after risks like cost overruns is factored in.

I don't know anyone who is against borrowing at x and investing at >x. You just need to proof that is really what is happening.

Yup. (I pointed this out from the word go btw )

Phil what would you say to a working class geezer in the pub who's rationale is "Well, wages are low because I'm easily replaceable- obviously cities need toilet cleaners etc. in order to function, so if immigration is lowered thus reducing the number of prospective shop assistants/cleaners etc. then the wages of the working-class man will go up. There won't be anything artificial about it- it'll simply *take* a salary of £12ph or whatever in order to *get* someone to *be* a cleaner etc"

How do you explain to him.that he'd actually be harmed by earning a higher salary? (as he might understand you as saying)

I skimmed it as well. It does indeed include benefits such as social housing, but the methodology just takes average government spending and therefore it's artificially low and doesn't cover the cost of building new infrastructure for 350k people.

The 12% in that report is an average since 2001. Basically, there was a huge spike in 2005-2007 where taxes they paid outstripped benefits claimed; however this has been declining since and in the most recent year of that study (2011) EU-10 migrants have been a net drain on the economy - so this study suggests they do indeed claim more in benefits than they pay in taxes, contrary to perceived wisdom.

Whereas the REMAIN argument has been leaving will put a "bomb under our economy" "Pensioners will lose £32,000" "There will be no jobs and investment" "House prices will fall 18%" and Juncker himself telling us we would incur their wrathe if we leave

Let's not do the X is fearmongering or Y side has (Insert universally hated politician) because both sides are playing the same game

You're attacking your own straw man. The arguments I summarised are from voters, not from politicians.

And you're wrong abut the In argument - most people I know who've said they'll vote In haven't mentioned any of the reasons you've given.

The electorate is a great deal more cynical about what politicians are saying than you give them credit for.

Those economic doom predictions have much more basis in fact than the corresponding "fear" arguments of the OUT camp.

Phil? Response please?

I would ask him why he deserves £12 an hour.

I am starting a temp job next week whilst I line up a grad scheme and I will get paid a good amount less than that working as a pension administrator.

If I get the accounting grad scheme I want at British Steel, with it resting on an assessment day I have already landed after a successful interview, I will be barely making more than that per hour. Depending on how you calc hours out for the year it is £12.xx/hr starting salary.

Why should a cleaner be paid almost as much as an accountant in a global company? Where I will be working directly on accounts measured in tens and hundreds of millions helping to turn around a historic company (which represents much of the entire industry here) and I will have responsibilities that will directly affect thousands of workers. A position I will have earned with a three year degree at least 2:1, probably a First, experience working in three different summer internships/placements including working abroad and a huge amount of research and prep to get hired.

In what world is hoovering, squirting and wiping equal to this in value?

Well yeah we don't tax the first £11000 now. Of course it's difficult to contribute on low wages and the net return will fall because of this.

Min wage full time hours has a taxable income of around £3000. So around £600 per head per year.

Ignoring other taxes of course.

This would be the same for a native too of course. But these jobs also facilitate other jobs that create more value. I've never seen studies on just limiting low end migration but I bet it stunts high level contributors (native and migrant).

Btw the easiest solve to this is to pull a cityboy and just increase min wage to £12, increasing taxable income. There are side effects to this too, but I bet less negative side effects than throttling low skill migrant flow.

Lol give me chance. I got there as soon as I returned to the forum after doing other stuff.

Well it sounds to me like you're admitting that staying in the EU will indeed depress working class wages because of the glut; but you think that it should do because its unfair that they'll earn as much as you.

You're essentially admitting that working class people won't benefit from remaining in the EU but that they should simply endure it.

Surely even if you're going to pursue remain you can therefore admit that the working class voting Brexit are voting in their own rational self-interest?

I'm a different note, how old are you? If you started on this site @18 at youngest in 2004, thAt would make you at least 30? Just wondering, seems quite late to start a graduate scheme. Do they still accept people that much older?

Some of the grads coming in at my work are so illiterate in how the working world works (despite inherent smarts) seems like any 30 year old whose spent a few years working should be able to jump in at a higher level.

As an aside though, I doubt any working class geezer would change his mind at to your argument...

Yeah no disrespect Phil but 12 p/h is only 25k p/a (roughly). There's a lot of working class people outearning you already and a tube driver earns twice what you do.

Accountants earn screw all, even at the big 4. Especially auditors.

And from anecdotal experience they work much more than other city and professional careers, with less responsibility and have more difficulty "shining" and standing out from the crowd.

That said, CFO's sit on the board of every company and are accountants...

Eh? What you on about you start on £30,500 at Deloitte (admittedly in London) and get ~£40-42k-odd once qualified. Go into industry and you're up to 50-60k-ish. Its not screw all.

It doesn't depress wages. Many current £7.20 jobs just wouldn't exist at £12 an hour or whatever. That is the point, if you put up wages then either everything else rises in cost to compensate, making that £12 worth less, or the job just isn't filled. Or it is filled illegally.

I made a life & career change starting an accounting and finance degree in my late 20s. I only just graduated this year with my results coming out next month.

I've never seen an age limit and during informal chats and formal applications my age hasn't been a negative best I can tell. I did stuff, decided to pursue something else so did some education. Its easy to sell as a positive in an interview.

If any of them cared I wouldn't have interviewed, its super easy to discriminate for age.

Oh and fwiw there were at least four others older than me on my course.

Its one of the better paying graduate positions.

PwC is on my list as a potential employer and does pay a good clip more, about 28k out of London. I know KPMG is ballpark in that area but I neither spoke to them nor applied. NHS was 25 iirc and most others hit that 25-28 range.

I prefer British Steel which pays significantly less due to them struggling right now being bought for £1 a week ago. But the type of accounting I will do there (management rather than financial which does better set up a CFO position if that is a route I pursue or is good for recovery/liquidation which is another interest of mine) is better long term for me.

If it comes to it I would trade off a decent amount of money against a lot more stability working across just one or many two locations for the length of the term. A year from now after I get married I don't want to be video calling with my wife and our kid whilst working the opposite end of the country on an engagement with a client for a week when the cost is less than £100 a week in lower salary to avoid it. If I go into an accounting firm I want it to be after I am qualified making 45+.

I will get chartered at basically any route I pursue over the next three years when the earnings rise dramatically and loads of doors swing open. I am not concerned about the earnings curve until then given we all get bumped up to essentially an equal playing field at that point. Hell at that salary I'd even consider London.