>>89625
Not him but it's more about the widespread abuse of children by people who aren't scary brown men that nobody even pretends to give a fuck about, I think.

>>89626
That's because street grooming is almost exclusively the preserve of Asian men whereas we're used to the good old fashioned paedophile ring. Even when they're diddling they've got to do it differently instead of integrating.

I guess it's a bit like when people hate benefit scroungers far more than tax dodgers; even though the latter is far more harmful to the economy it's less in people's faces.

That said, given the prevalence of chav paedo hunters I wouldn't say that they don't get up in arms about white kiddie fiddlers. You should join a local Facebook group when there's rumours a carpet-bagger has moved to the area.

>>89627
>That's because street grooming is almost exclusively the preserve of Asian men whereas we're used to the good old fashioned paedophile ring. Even when they're diddling they've got to do it differently instead of integrating.

>I guess it's a bit like when people hate benefit scroungers far more than tax dodgers; even though the latter is far more harmful to the economy it's less in people's faces.

Yes. This is exactly what I'm getting at.

>That said, given the prevalence of chav paedo hunters I wouldn't say that they don't get up in arms about white kiddie fiddlers. You should join a local Facebook group when there's rumours a carpet-bagger has moved to the area.

I was talking more along the lines of voting in a prime minister who was on the record saying "let's not investigate historic sex abuse cases" and winking to the camera less than 6 months before he won an historic majority in a general election.

>>89627

>I guess it's a bit like when people hate benefit scroungers far more than tax dodgers; even though the latter is far more harmful to the economy it's less in people's faces.

That's just classism.

>>89628

>a prime minister who was on the record saying "let's not investigate historic sex abuse cases" and winking to the camera

Politics is so fucking far gone at this point that I really don't know if this happened verbatim or if you're just paraphrasing a more subtle statement.

>>89610
There's also the other placard that apparently spells KKK with four Ks.

>>89615
>"Oh, well, it's actually fine, I don't mind all that downward pressure on wages at all. It's worth giving up my prospects and the prospects of my son's generation for the multicultural utopia we could create."
You might have a point if any part of that was even remotely true.

>>89630
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/boris-johnson-historial-child-abuse-investigation/

>>89632

Does immigration empirically have an effect on wages?

>>89634
As I recall, it's negligible, and outweighed by pretty much every other contributing factor to wage movement. It required something like a 10% increase in the overall share (i.e. proportion, not number) in a sector to have a relative impact of around 1% on the wages in that sector.

>>89635
>>89634
>>89632

>Growing skills shortages in the UK jobs market are starting to drive up wages, according to a survey, as more companies across the country report difficulties finding staff.

https://theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/18/skills-shortages-uk-pushing-workers-pay-survey-brexit

>Employers have had to ­increase wages and offer more benefits to compete for ­British workers as European migrants shun the UK in the run-up to Brexit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/13/wages-rise-attract-british-workers2/

>Average pay in Britain is rising at the fastest rate in nearly a decade, amid a record fall in the number of eastern European workers ahead of Brexit and business complaints about a shortage of qualified staff.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1NI115

>A fall in people coming to Britain from other European Union countries has aggravated a shortage of workers and forced employers to raise starting salaries at the fastest pace in nearly two years during August

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005

>Construction pay rises as EU workers weigh up leaving UK

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/24/construction-pay-rises-as-eu-workers-weigh-up-leaving-uk-survey-brexit

>>89634
Research has found the effect of immigration on the average wage to be small, but it isn't evenly distributed so unskilled workers are the worst affected.

>>89636
Your anecdata is not an indication of cheap labour leaving, but an indication of a labour shortage.

>>89638
Labour shortages are notoriously unrelated to labour leaving the country, yes.

>>89639
Nice strawman there, lad. I'll bet you're always fending off crows at parties.

>>89640
What a truly odd response. You don't know what a strawman is, do you?

>>89655
Something that attracts crows, apparently.

>>89615
It's always seemed odd to me how nobody's tried to break through this by offering to spend more money.*
If we accept that immigration brings economic benefits and that those benefits flow primarily to the top of society, why not just redistribute them back downwards again? Especially to schools, hospitals and housing - the services that naturally suffer in quality as more people use them. People aren't economic calculating units so the politics behind selling the idea aren't perfect, but imagine if someone said something like: Okay, your wages will fall because of immigration, but then we'll give you more tax credits (paid for by those benefiting from cheap labour), so actually you'll be better off overall.

But then you might quickly get away from a discussion on migration towards a discussion about the influence of the rich and powerful. A situation that's a win-win for poor locals and for poor immigrants at the expense of the better off is a situation that'd probably get the ABC1s voting UKIP.
*Okay, Labour is simultaneously seen as the "more immigrants" and the "spend more" party, but neither of those positions are tied together into a single narrative.

>>89661
> If we accept that immigration brings economic benefits and that those benefits flow primarily to the top of society

I'm not completely in the land of the living yet, but that seems to be jumping form to 8 to 80, somehow.

>>89661
What is often overlooked is that the main concern with immigration in this country is social rather than economic.

People do not like change, especially one foisted on them with no say on the matter and if they see it as a change for the worse. If you look at the Leave vote then it was in areas that are still extremely white British but incurred proportionately the greatest demographic changes over the past 20 years or so. People are suspicious of those who were different to them, which of course the press were happy to pour fuel on. It's the slow drip of cultural differences which are frowned upon, even things as minor as a Polak taking carp from a lake to eat at home can make the national press. They're an easy scapegoat, but things like the mass diddling doesn't help.

I'm very open minded but I find myself more guarded and wary around people from certain cultures with more backwards views; the only times I've experienced homophobia in the few years has been from Muslims. If you live in a place where family neighbourhoods have been converted into street upon street of shabby HMOs to accommodate an influx of people who are different to you, often coming in large enough numbers to form enclaves rather than having to integrate, then I can see why people want things back the way they were.

Nobody sells the social benefits of immigration. All you get is a half-arsed "think about all the different kinds of takeaway!" or something about the NHS.

>>89664

>If you look at the Leave vote then it was in areas that are still extremely white British but incurred proportionately the greatest demographic changes over the past 20 years or so.

That's only half true. Lincolnshire and the West Midlands did vote strongly to leave, but so did Cornwall and Cumbria. Nearly every major city voted strongly in favour of remain, regardless of the level of immigration. The correlation between levels of immigration and the leave vote share is far weaker than the correlations with age and level of education - young and highly educated people overwhelmingly voted remain, old and uneducated people overwhelmingly voted leave.

>>89661
I've so far avoided the usual cunt-off as there's no commonly agreed upon facts* but I'd agree with the broad thrust of your idea. I'd only go further and change tax credits to hiking up the minimum wage while improving baseline workplace conditions so that Sports Direct etc. can't exploit immigrant labour. Probably throw in some loans for productivity upgrades as well but that's something the government has started doing. I'm very much against the kind of indirect state subsidy that tax credits create or focusing on mitigation over the long-term but I suspect you're not married to this.

>But then you might quickly get away from a discussion on migration towards a discussion about the influence of the rich and powerful.

How about we discuss about bad policy first. Many parts of the country and economy have been neglected for decades with their political voice marginalised by a far wider group than the stereotypical fat-cats. I think Labour is especially at fault with this as they surrendered their core working class vote to pander to metropolitan shithouses but the Tories have also been at fault for falling asleep on issues of how we invest in the UK economy.

It's sad that it always comes down this but yeah, most the country could get behind some form of social-conservatism/national-socialism. Unfortunately politics is divided between the slimy crooks and the bongo-enriching (who are also crooks).

*You know who you are.

>>89665
>That's only half true.

No. It's entirely true.

Consider the percentage-change in migrant numbers, rather than the total headcount, and the opposite pattern emerges (chart 2). Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, in Lincolnshire (where 15.4% of the population are foreign-born). But it has grown precipitously in a short period of time (by 479%, in Boston’s case). High levels of immigration don’t seem to bother Britons; high rates of change do.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/08/britains-immigration-paradox

People don't like change.

>>89664
I don't know how far I'd go in distinguishing the two. There is a subset of the population that wider globalisation has either had a negative impact on or only slightly positive (depending on who you ask) and the whole topic would be less scary if the natives could afford to have large families on a comfortable lifestyle.

Anyway, just imagine how nice everyone would be if we were all absolutely minted. Lots of new takeaways probably would balance it in that kind of scenario.

>even things as minor as a Polak taking carp from a lake to eat at home can make the national press

I'm still angry about this. The cunts near where I live went spearfishing and cleaned out the whole lake in a night - a lake that had been stocked with carp since the days of Rome. That's not minor, it's criminal subset of an otherwise pretty great group of immigrants who ruined it for everyone.

Edit: I'd post the elephant graph but I keep getting a 500 error

>>89667

Fuck me, in what way is 15% foreign born a low percentage?

I think the pursuit of immigration to fill skill gaps is short sighted and disrespectful to the native population. It's an issue that's defended in the name of both the economy and human rights when it's mostly about feeding the growth mindset and pushing population decline or leveling ever further under the rug. It's a very lumpy rug by now.

I can't see anyone willing to admit our population needs to decline and we need a society that allows this. Importing people to our corner of the world keeps our population growing and brings people in to our mega consumptionist society, it's bad in multiple levels.

Especially going forward it's worth thinking about food and water security for our population that's already here, one of the many climate issues to be tackled involves fresh water supply and it's the wise thing to keep our demand at a more manageable level by stopping population growth.

I guess I just needed to say that, nobody really listens anyway.

What the fuck is wrong with this site. ?Ugh.

>>89672
Nothing.

>>89672>>89673
Looks like a server issue to me. I couldn't get on individual boards earlier, only /*/sfw/, and I got that error message someone made a thread about on /shed/ if I try posting images.

>>89671
The reason nobody is willing to admit the population needs to decline is because populationists like you are fucking nuts. All your arguments are completely fallacious. Food and water security is not threatened by population, it's threatened by consumption (as you mention but then dismiss for some reason) and ultimately capitalism.

>>89675

Care to tell us how, exactly, consumption is not directly tied to population?

I'm willing to listen even if you're one of the nutters from the Are Greta thread who will tell us everything is fine and justified, because we can sustain twice as many people on the same amount of resources if we all go vegan and ration water to three glasses a day.

>>89676
How many t-shirts and pairs of jeans does one person need? How many do people get through needlessly? Go and look up how much fresh water it takes to produce them.

>>89677
If it gets to the point where this kind of question needs an answer we're fucked.

>>89671
>the pursuit of immigration to fill skill gaps is short sighted and disrespectful to the native population

Why?

>>89679
Employers won't train people up in this country if they can import someone already trained abroad. For example, the NHS is heavily reliant on those from overseas but tens of thousands of people in this country apply and are rejected every year to train as a nurse; the cost of training a nurse is around three times higher than hiring a migrant nurse.

The cost is around £70,000 to train a nurse, £479,000 to train a GP and £725,000 to train a hospital consultant. We have more foreign born medical staff than anywhere else in Europe and are a key reason why countries like India, Romania and parts of Africa face severe staffing shortages; it's simply unethical.

5 years ago today. As you say, simpler times.

>>89678
I just think that if less than £50 spent in Primark on clothes that'll fall apart after a few weeks can use as much fresh water as a human will drink in their entire lifetime, maybe curbing consumerism is more sensible than jumping straight to eugenics.

>>89678

I know, right? If the only options are buying a bit less shit or genocide, well, we'd better crack out the Zyklon B.

>>89680

>We have more foreign born medical staff than anywhere else in Europe and are a key reason why countries like India, Romania and parts of Africa face severe staffing shortages; it's simply unethical.

Not true. Like most things, training medics has huge economies of scale - training lots of medics makes each marginal medic cheaper to train. Those countries have staff shortages because of underfunding and mismanagement of their domestic healthcare and education systems, not because of a brain drain. The Philippines is the world's largest exporter of nurses, but the effect on their domestic healthcare system has been either neutral or positive; the economic benefits to the Philippines are huge, because of the billions in foreign currency that flow into the country via remittances from overseas workers.

https://economics.nd.edu/assets/289077/theoharides_amherst_intl_migration_of_healthcare_pros.pdf

>>89683
It's all well and good saying that but plenty of impoverished nations simply don't have the resources. In Romania the number of doctors in hospitals fell between 2011 and 2013 from 21,400 to 14,400, with over 2,100 Romanian doctors working in the NHS.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/romanian-health-service-crisis-doctors-uk

Romania spends billions training doctors but research has found that around 85% of them plan on emigrating; it's estimated 43,000 doctors left Romania between joining the EU in 2007 and 2016, bearing in mind most developed EU nations had restrictions on movement until 2009 or 2014.

They've tried increasing wages but they're still significantly higher in Western Europe. When there's such a disparity the direction of travel is almost exclusively one way.

You can point out how wonderful the Philippines are for their economies of scale in becoming a production line for training medical staff whilst saying the problems Romania face are their own fault for not being organised enough. However, it's simply unethical. It's neo-colonialism, rich countries plundering the resources of impoverished nations.

The type of immigration we've had in this country for years is just inverse imperialism. Instead of going to foreign countries to exploit their poor, we bring their poor here to exploit at home. It's really quite baffling they never thought of it sooner.

No leftist worth their salt can defend free movement except in the proper Bolshy sense of a borderless global utopia where all workers are equal and share in the fruits of their labourer.

Anyway I don't know why were having this argument again, you've all had time to defend immigration in the decade or so leading up to Brexit and you convinced nobody then. You're certainly not going to change any minds now it's already happened.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to get used to doing your own dishes instead of paying for a maid.

>>89684

Romania could fix their problems with the stroke of a pen by introducing a British-style student finance system. 9% of earnings over £25k wouldn't impact anyone who stayed in Romania, but it'd bring in vast amounts of delicious foreign currency. It's hardly our fault that Romania give away their doctors for nowt.

>>89686 you do realise that the British student finance system has no obligation to continue payment once you move abroad? And that even if they included that clause, there would be no practical way of enforcement.
Also I'm not sure how a slightly increased future revenue for the gov would help with brain drain and other demographic problems. Particularly when that revenue increase from loan payments still won't make up for the loss of various taxes and re-cycling money within the local economy, that the doctor staying in Romania would bring instead.

>>89685
>It's really quite baffling they never thought of it sooner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Romania retains a lot of its communist governmental inefficiencies, so it's easy to see why it's stagnant. Pair that with less social freedoms and it doesn't seem a very appealing place, especially when you can easily move to a 'better' nation.

It's not neo-colonial or unethical to offer a better deal. Romania could improve itself for the betterment of its people but it isn't. A country can fuck its own people over much more than 'the big bad rich ones'.

>>89689
It's a bit hard for the country to improve with such a massive brain drain.

>>89687

>you do realise that the British student finance system has no obligation to continue payment once you move abroad?

I don't realise that, because it's not true. You still owe the SLC money and you're obliged to return an Overseas Income Assessment Form if you leave the country for more than three months. The SLC has information-sharing agreements with many European governments and while they have limited ability to enforce repayments in many countries, they can and will pursue you if you ever return to the UK.

How time flies.

Happy anniversary, lads.

>>89691

Do either of you lads have any data or sources on this? I would like to know the exact obligations and enforcement mechanisms.

>>89591
Moral of the story: The British public love bigots.

>>97679
What's that got to do with student finance?