Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#121

Post by gghhzzgghhzz »

rich_sasha wrote: post #119
gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced about that. This worship of free trade we had was completely unrestricted. A lot of trade was completely decoupled from any real benefit or political or social project or any environmental concerns. If KPIs from trade and financial services are the main thing that are measured, then you will always end up with trade for trade's sake. “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they…

Brexit has exacerbated at least 2 industries due to labour shortages - and probably more. These in turn translate into materially worse conditions for everyone. First one is childcare. Nurseries and preschools were full of nice, dedicated people from Europe working for modest wages - for one reason or another they were happy with it. They have mostly gone home, or return soon after coming. I see this first-hand. I ha…

> NHS and schooling are among the top problems in the UK right now. Add social care for the elderly and agriculture

but free trade / free movement just papered over the actual issue. You can temporarily use a form of economic imperialism to bring in people to run key services in your country for lower wages, but if won't solve the real issue and won't last forever, because it only 'works' between countries with relative unequal economies. It also does not compensate the donar country for the large issues it creates there.

Key workers are not being paid anywhere near enough to compensate for their importance to the country and to the economy, we are not valuing them no matter where they come from, and we are not training and recruiting enough people locally. Until this changes, then people are not going to come here to work in the NHS, child care etc. Free movement or not.

This issue was coming sooner or later, in some sectors Brexit has highlighted it.

If you want more people to come work here, then support the strikes.

EDIT. in addition, good quality child care should be provided free by the state, it is a massive benefit to the economy and to society. That's another core issue that was never addressed while we were inside the EU, nor is it (yet) being addressed outside it.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#122

Post by piva00 »

fallingknife wrote: post #100
saeranv wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A country's "number of people" isn't an independant parameter that you can just slide down so that your GDP/person increases. If you reduce the "number of people" (i.e. by reducing immigration) you are typically reduce your GDP at a much higher rate, and thus will have a lower GDP/person overall. Your eating into your economy's ability to support the division of labour, specialization and other efficiencies that can…

> young, educated workers who are consistently net creators of jobs Yes. If that's the kind of immigrants you're bringing in. But most often I hear this argument used by people who want to justify bringing in a very different type.

The other type of immigrant that you seem to have qualms with is also a pretty damn important part of a developed country's economy. Do you think the average well-educated Brit is going to the fields to pick strawberries? Or going to move manure around a pig farm? Those jobs need people as well, and the local population has a dwindling number of people willing to perform them.

Migrant labour for jobs in construction, farming and others not requiring highly educated people freed up British labour to become more highly specialised. It sucked for Brits trying to live off this labour as immigrants naturally pushed salaries down (no prejudice against that, I'm an immigrant myself and do understand the motivation of accepting lower salaries for better living conditions), on the other hand it freed natives to pursue higher paying jobs.

It's a trade-off for society, with pros and cons, very unfortunate cons that affect the lower strata of society but that allowed others to develop technologies.

If you don't like the "very different type" of immigrants then you gotta accept that a lot of jobs that are fundamental to society will have shortages, push prices of basic needs up, etc. because just a few people in a developed economy are looking forward to go work in the fields, or in a pig farm, or building houses.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#123

Post by soco »

legitster wrote: post #94
makomk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even Brexit really - the whole of Europe is poorer on a real, practical level because its economies cannot produce the same amount of stuff. Brexit put some additional barriers to exporting and importing stuff from Europe, but generally speaking the main reason imports aren't available cheaply is because the supply isn't there for anyone and export markets are mostly going away because there's no longer the…

Although a political disaster, France's pension reform did not happen out of the blue. The country is facing a real demographics disaster and milking a few extra years out of their working age population will not be enough to head off the problem that they are simply not going to have economic productivity to support their population comfortably.

The pension system mathematics is based on a certain age pyramid. If that pyramid changes - which it did and does - you need to change something. So the French may go on the streets until forever, money in the pension system still cannot come out of the pen of the president. Now if they want to change the system itself including its mathematics, that's another story but I don't think it was even touched (and I'm not aware of any other alternatives some other place either)

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#124

Post by rich_sasha »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #120
rich_sasha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit has exacerbated at least 2 industries due to labour shortages - and probably more. These in turn translate into materially worse conditions for everyone. First one is childcare. Nurseries and preschools were full of nice, dedicated people from Europe working for modest wages - for one reason or another they were happy with it. They have mostly gone home, or return soon after coming. I see this first-hand. I ha…

Isn't that why UK is easing migration conditions from Africa and Asia now? To cover the shortage left by the EU migrants? A friend of mine who just moved to the UK, went to a migrant GP who barely spoke English and was googling his symptoms to give him a diagnostic lol. No idea how he was allowed to practice medicine in the UK but it's terrifying.

Well, quite. But it seems that, for whatever reason, the migrant workers (or, you know, expats as we'd say if it were the English going abroad) tend to be lower-skilled and, as you say, often their command of the local language is questionable.

It's not a dig at people from Africa and Asia in any way, but the selection bias is obvious.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#125

Post by makomk »

rich_sasha wrote: post #119
gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced about that. This worship of free trade we had was completely unrestricted. A lot of trade was completely decoupled from any real benefit or political or social project or any environmental concerns. If KPIs from trade and financial services are the main thing that are measured, then you will always end up with trade for trade's sake. “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they…

Brexit has exacerbated at least 2 industries due to labour shortages - and probably more. These in turn translate into materially worse conditions for everyone. First one is childcare. Nurseries and preschools were full of nice, dedicated people from Europe working for modest wages - for one reason or another they were happy with it. They have mostly gone home, or return soon after coming. I see this first-hand. I ha…

Those labour shortages are happening throught Europe and the developed world though - both general shortages of labour and the specific shortages of, for example, medical staff. The argument I've sometimes seen made is that sure, the EU may have shortages of those staff, but they'll have an easier time dealing with it because they have freedom of movement to allow workers to move to where the jobs are. That makes no sense because no amount of shuffling around workers between countries can change the fact that there's not enough to go around across the entire region and the occupations in shortage are basically the same everywhere too.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#126

Post by fallingknife »

piva00 wrote: post #122
fallingknife wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> young, educated workers who are consistently net creators of jobs Yes. If that's the kind of immigrants you're bringing in. But most often I hear this argument used by people who want to justify bringing in a very different type.

The other type of immigrant that you seem to have qualms with is also a pretty damn important part of a developed country's economy. Do you think the average well-educated Brit is going to the fields to pick strawberries? Or going to move manure around a pig farm? Those jobs need people as well, and the local population has a dwindling number of people willing to perform them. Migrant labour for jobs in construction,…

I would be willing to take that trade off if income equality weren't at all time highs. Now is not the time to drive down wages at the low end.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#127

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #121
rich_sasha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit has exacerbated at least 2 industries due to labour shortages - and probably more. These in turn translate into materially worse conditions for everyone. First one is childcare. Nurseries and preschools were full of nice, dedicated people from Europe working for modest wages - for one reason or another they were happy with it. They have mostly gone home, or return soon after coming. I see this first-hand. I ha…

> NHS and schooling are among the top problems in the UK right now. Add social care for the elderly and agriculture but free trade / free movement just papered over the actual issue. You can temporarily use a form of economic imperialism to bring in people to run key services in your country for lower wages, but if won't solve the real issue and won't last forever, because it only 'works' between countries with relat…

I don't follow your argument.

On the one hand you say that because we paid relatively more than poorer countries, this attracted a lot of people to work here. This is apparently "economic imperialism".

Then you say that if we want more people to come and work here, we should pay even better than we were?

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#128

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #81
mkoubaa wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions existed long before Brexit, _and_ Brexit made it materially worse

I'm not convinced about that. This worship of free trade we had was completely unrestricted. A lot of trade was completely decoupled from any real benefit or political or social project or any environmental concerns. If KPIs from trade and financial services are the main thing that are measured, then you will always end up with trade for trade's sake. “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they…

People trade to make money. They don't generally do it to achieve political or social goals.

Saying that cutting ourselves off from our main trading partners is "an opportunity to assess what we are trading and why" is like saying that cutting off your legs is an opportunity to assess where we were walking and why.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#129

Post by rich_sasha »

makomk wrote: post #125
rich_sasha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit has exacerbated at least 2 industries due to labour shortages - and probably more. These in turn translate into materially worse conditions for everyone. First one is childcare. Nurseries and preschools were full of nice, dedicated people from Europe working for modest wages - for one reason or another they were happy with it. They have mostly gone home, or return soon after coming. I see this first-hand. I ha…

Those labour shortages are happening throught Europe and the developed world though - both general shortages of labour and the specific shortages of, for example, medical staff. The argument I've sometimes seen made is that sure, the EU may have shortages of those staff, but they'll have an easier time dealing with it because they have freedom of movement to allow workers to move to where the jobs are. That makes no…

From a myopic UK point of view it's still a net negative. They can draw in skilled employees from elsewhere in the EU and have someone else deal with the issue. UK shot itself in the knee by banning them.

And it's not even clear what the balance of benefits is, precisely. Expats often return eventually and boost the local economy with money saved while away. Certainly what's happening with Poland - yes there is a pinch from people leaving, but also a cash stream going back.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#130

Post by gilbetron »

seydor wrote: post #77
legitster wrote: post #18

A lot of commenters are obsessed with just finding money. You can't eat money. You can't build a house out of it (advisably). Money is only as valuable as the amount of stuff in an economy. More money with the same amount of stuff is just inflation. The Pound does not need more inflation. Money and trade are only valuable in so much as they aid exchange and efficiency. On a real, practical-level Brexit made England m…

Money is zero sum and it determines who owns the 'stuff'. Higher wages mean working-age generations are able to generate some wealth whereas until now only older generations could, as their assets continuously appreciated without losing value due to inflation. I see the whole thing as intergenerational conflict. Pre-genX'ers went through a period of high inflation, which was also one of historically low inequality, f…

I like your analysis, but I love how it leaves GenXers out of the picture. Typical.
Post reply on HN