UK offers right to residency and path to citizenship to 3m Hong Kong citizens

Originally Posted by nomadking

The sort of example I was thinking of, was a takeaway where if somebody didn't spend it there, they would've spent it somewhere else. Not necessarily on food.

Still waiting for this supposedly simple explanation, that should've been ready and around for decades, just to be trotted out.

The same way anyone else increases GDP - assuming they're working.

The person works and presumably produces something of value for someone which'll contribute to the overall output of the country. In turn, they'll also be paid and spend in the economy generating further demand and in theory futher work (which will lead to more output, more spending and so on).

Don't forget that taxation is supposed to play it's part.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

The same way anyone else increases GDP - assuming they're working.

The person works and presumably produces something of value for someone which'll contribute to the overall output of the country. In turn, they'll also be paid and spend in the economy generating further demand and in theory futher work (which will lead to more output, more spending and so on).

And if that person wasn't in this country, would that job mysteriously not exist? But how much of that tax is from income that non-immigrants would have earned instead. It's not exactly new income that wouldn't have existed if they hadn't come here. Maybe some of it, simply from the extra demand of extra people being here. Then you have to factor in the money they send abroad. The effect of that is many times the amount involved. Normally money will pass from A to B to C etc within this country. They all earn an income with the same money. If it goes from A to B and then out of the country, it is lost income and GDP for this country.

Just generating further demand is a nonsense argument. You could allow in 10m people, and it would magically increase demand, but NOT where the money to pay for that demand came from. As a total GDP figure, the economy of China looks great compared to the UK, but look at the GDP per person, and it's another matter. Scotland has a lower GDP than Bangladesh. Which would you say is the richer country? Scotland's GDP per person is the region of 20 times higher.

Eg A TV programme a few years ago. Slovakian Roma couple came over with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. All housed in several homes, all receiving benefits of one sort or another(only one had a job), needing taxpayer funded interpreters and support officers etc. Now add in SIX THOUSAND others had also come over and were living in Rotherham. Another example was a guy from Romania came over, intending to stay just for a year, claim enough benefits to send £10,000 back to Romania, to do up his house there. They will have all added to total GDP, but it will have had to be funded by public borrowing.

The wealthier of the Hong Kong residents will likely have kept their heads down and not be at risk. In order to realise their assets, they would have to sell them to somebody else. Who would be buying?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If that's the case it's a pretty meaningless gesture by our Government.

Isn't that the point here: they have calculated that the offer will never be claimed in enough numbers to matter so that they look good in making it and costs them (next to) nothing.

Of course, if they have miscalculated then the fun begins ..

[heero_yuy]

Quote from ianch99:

Isn't that the point here: they have calculated that the offer will never be claimed in enough numbers to matter so that they look good in making it and costs them (next to) nothing.

Of course, if they have miscalculated then the fun begins ..

Like Blair and the Eastern Europeans: Only a few thousand.

Make that hundreds of thousands.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Isn't that the point here: they have calculated that the offer will never be claimed in enough numbers to matter so that they look good in making it and costs them (next to) nothing.

Of course, if they have miscalculated then the fun begins ..

You really hate this government, don't you? What you've said is so unconstructive and the same sort of bile that you express about Brexit.

The point here is that the UK finds itself hoist by the petard of international treaty. I'd rather we lived up to our commitments and be trusted than otherwise.

Btw, if the UK is swamped with refugees from communist China oppression, then might we need to relabel that stupid word "BAME" - add a few letters, signs and numbers, perhaps in ideogram form?

Originally Posted by nomadking

And if that person wasn't in this country, would that job mysteriously not exist? But how much of that tax is from income that non-immigrants would have earned instead. It's not exactly new income that wouldn't have existed if they hadn't come here. Maybe some of it, simply from the extra demand of extra people being here. Then you have to factor in the money they send abroad. The effect of that is many times the amount involved. Normally money will pass from A to B to C etc within this country. They all earn an income with the same money. If it goes from A to B and then out of the country, it is lost income and GDP for this country.

Any specific job might have already existed but in the aggregate more workers should produce more output producing more jobs. Yes, part of it is the extra demand more people makes. That's the GDP per head increased slower than GDP during the early 2000s when we had an increase in EU migration.

However you're assuming there is a static amount of work. More economic activity should generate more work. It's a pretty foundational concept to how our economic system works. There isn't a static amount of money or work to be done.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Damien

Any specific job might have already existed but in the aggregate more workers should produce more output producing more jobs. Yes, part of it is the extra demand more people makes. That's the GDP per head increased slower than GDP during the early 2000s when we had an increase in EU migration.

However you're assuming there is a static amount of work. More economic activity should generate more work. It's a pretty foundational concept to how our economic system works. There isn't a static amount of money or work to be done.

...but mass automation is just around the corner.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

...but mass automation is just around the corner.

Well yeah, that's a whole different argument.

Originally Posted by Carth

I think there were 'jobs galore' back in the day . . before everyone was put out of work through advances in automation, globalization, and the Gov't selling stuff off

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------



Yep, something else I don't get . . . probably because 'stats' don't do anything for me

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...01%2C023%2C583.

1972: UK unemployment tops one million

The number of people out of work and claiming benefit has risen above one million for the first time since the 1930s.

There were angry demonstrations in the House of Commons when the jobless total was confirmed as 1,023,583.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Any specific job might have already existed but in the aggregate more workers should produce more output producing more jobs. Yes, part of it is the extra demand more people makes. That's the GDP per head increased slower than GDP during the early 2000s when we had an increase in EU migration.

However you're assuming there is a static amount of work. More economic activity should generate more work. It's a pretty foundational concept to how our economic system works. There isn't a static amount of money or work to be done.

And where does this "more output" go to? A higher total GDP, DOES NOT mean a better economy. Where does this money that is funding this alleged massive extra demand come from? You could let in 10m extra people, all on benefits, and the GDP would go up. But in no way whatsoever would the economy be better. The GDP per person would be further diluted.

Have you thought of doing some research on this, rather than badgering Damien with questions?

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-t...h-rate-3306016

The GDP growth rate indicates how quickly—or slowly—the economy is growing or shrinking.

It is driven by the four components of GDP, the largest being personal consumption expenditures.

If there are more people in jobs earning and spending money, GDP increases...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13200758

GDP can be measured in three ways:

Output measure: This is the total value of the goods and services produced by all sectors of the economy: agriculture, manufacturing, energy, construction, the service sector and government

Expenditure measure: The value of the goods and services bought by households and by government, investment in machinery and buildings. This also includes the value of exports minus imports

Income measure: The value of the income generated mostly in terms of profits and wages.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Have you thought of doing some research on this, rather than badgering Damien with questions?

Have you given any thought to the idea that Damian might be the font of all knowledge on the subject.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And where does this "more output" go to? A higher total GDP, DOES NOT mean a better economy. Where does this money that is funding this alleged massive extra demand come from? You could let in 10m extra people, all on benefits, and the GDP would go up. But in no way whatsoever would the economy be better. The GDP per person would be further diluted.

You are correct that there is no economic benefit to everyone being on benefits. But if they all "opened takeaways"* and the market was able to sustain all those takeaways without subsidies then in classical economic thinking that is a real contribution.

*crazy example but here we are

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Have you given any thought to the idea that Damian might be the font of all knowledge on the subject.

No, because he has never professed to be an economist.