Effects of Austerity Cuts part 58

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Effects of Austerity Cuts part 58

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 25 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.08am
Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am 260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant". Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article. But that's an annual figure. 0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly. You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration. Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 9.08am

Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am

Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am

Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am

260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant".

Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article.

But that's an annual figure.
0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly.

You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant

You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration.

Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 18 Mar 15 9.16am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am 260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant". Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article. But that's an annual figure. 0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly. You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration. Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum. 260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate). In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources. As I said, you can argue that it's beneficial, which is fine (but a seperate argument) but you can't just claim the figures are insignificant and ignore them. That sort of approach is precisely what led to the rise of UKIP - "don't talk about it or you're a racist"
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 18 Mar 15 9.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am

Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am

Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am

Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am

260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant".

Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article.

But that's an annual figure.
0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly.

You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant

You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration.

Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum.

260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate).

In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources.

As I said, you can argue that it's beneficial, which is fine (but a seperate argument) but you can't just claim the figures are insignificant and ignore them. That sort of approach is precisely what led to the rise of UKIP - "don't talk about it or you're a racist"

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.20am
Quote Catfish at 17 Mar 2015 7.54pm It has become a standard thing to say that immigration is economically a good thng and that we are better off as a result of immgration over the last 15-20 years. Really? The number of foreign born people has risen from 3 to 7 million in that time. Well that is not a bad experiment - if there were economic advantages they should now be readily apparent. They are not. Even the most liberal economists say that the economic benefits are marginal at best. What they cannot Inclde in their sums, because they are unknowns, is the impact of illegal workers on the job market and the impact of a shadow population on services, housing, schools, hospitals and prisons. No one can calculate the impact on the economy of those millions who send much of their earnings abroad rather than recycle wealth into our economy. Even if there were a marginal economic benefit it is more than offset by the social tensions and risks to our security. Technically, better off, in terms of macro-economic picture, doesn't actually mean everything is bright and rosy, just that realistically those 'at the top are better off as a result', there are many different ways to determine success, and ecconmic benefit has a null real world value for most people, because the benefit they personally see on a micro scale is minimal. Realistically, the problem of 'immigration' stems not so much from the fact of migration, but from the 'economic situation' prior to the impact of the 'crunch' European migration wasn't an issue, people generally found it a positive experience, as they migrants typically filled vacancies that 'upper working class and middle class' citizens didn't want to have to do, and did it affordably. Post crunch, the contraction has affected those two very media significant demographics, as they've found themselves squeezed by the competition for jobs from migration, as employers looking to reduce operation costs, have passed on that cost to their workers, and government spending cuts have had a big impact on people working in government contract and mid level civil service facing roles. Meanwhile the working classes, typically working alongside those migrant workers, find themselves increasing squeezed towards the underclasses, by rising costs, and an accessable cheap labour force. Consequently, these people have come to see migration workers in a different light, and a convenient scapegoat for blame (in reality those migrant workers are in the same situation more or less), and rather than looking at the economic failures in state, that have essentially benefitted corporate UK over the population, the focus has become about 'foreigners being to blame for everything' - a very traditional scape goat rolled out in times of economic constriction and downturn. The reality is that some very poor economic decisions, both in finance, corporate and government resulted in a situation, which increasingly has become blamed not on those responsible, but a minority of its victims. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 9.20am

Quote Catfish at 17 Mar 2015 7.54pm

It has become a standard thing to say that immigration is economically a good thng and that we are better off as a result of immgration over the last 15-20 years. Really?
The number of foreign born people has risen from 3 to 7 million in that time. Well that is not a bad experiment - if there were economic advantages they should now be readily apparent. They are not. Even the most liberal economists say that the economic benefits are marginal at best. What they cannot Inclde in their sums, because they are unknowns, is the impact of illegal workers on the job market and the impact of a shadow population on services, housing, schools, hospitals and prisons. No one can calculate the impact on the economy of those millions who send much of their earnings abroad rather than recycle wealth into our economy. Even if there were a marginal economic benefit it is more than offset by the social tensions and risks to our security.

Technically, better off, in terms of macro-economic picture, doesn't actually mean everything is bright and rosy, just that realistically those 'at the top are better off as a result', there are many different ways to determine success, and ecconmic benefit has a null real world value for most people, because the benefit they personally see on a micro scale is minimal.

Realistically, the problem of 'immigration' stems not so much from the fact of migration, but from the 'economic situation' prior to the impact of the 'crunch' European migration wasn't an issue, people generally found it a positive experience, as they migrants typically filled vacancies that 'upper working class and middle class' citizens didn't want to have to do, and did it affordably.

Post crunch, the contraction has affected those two very media significant demographics, as they've found themselves squeezed by the competition for jobs from migration, as employers looking to reduce operation costs, have passed on that cost to their workers, and government spending cuts have had a big impact on people working in government contract and mid level civil service facing roles.

Meanwhile the working classes, typically working alongside those migrant workers, find themselves increasing squeezed towards the underclasses, by rising costs, and an accessable cheap labour force.

Consequently, these people have come to see migration workers in a different light, and a convenient scapegoat for blame (in reality those migrant workers are in the same situation more or less), and rather than looking at the economic failures in state, that have essentially benefitted corporate UK over the population, the focus has become about 'foreigners being to blame for everything' - a very traditional scape goat rolled out in times of economic constriction and downturn.

The reality is that some very poor economic decisions, both in finance, corporate and government resulted in a situation, which increasingly has become blamed not on those responsible, but a minority of its victims.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.25am
Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am 260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant". Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article. But that's an annual figure. 0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly. You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration. Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum. 260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate). In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources. As I said, you can argue that it's beneficial, which is fine (but a seperate argument) but you can't just claim the figures are insignificant and ignore them. That sort of approach is precisely what led to the rise of UKIP - "don't talk about it or you're a racist" Except of course it is, if its a 0.5% factor of the whole. Even at 5%, that would mean that 95% of the 'factor or problem' occurs elsewhere, so it would only be significant if 95% of the other factors fell below the 5% margin. You might as well be arguing the 5 is a bigger number than 95. Statistical relevancy is an objective measurement, determined in line with mathematics. As such only someone not in their right mind would argue that a statistically insignificant factor is significant. This is why in statistical based science, you tend to argue with the methodology of determining significance rather than the results of the statistical analysis. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 9.25am

Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am

Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am

Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am

Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am

260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant".

Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article.

But that's an annual figure.
0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly.

You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant

You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration.

Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum.

260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate).

In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources.

Except of course it is, if its a 0.5% factor of the whole. Even at 5%, that would mean that 95% of the 'factor or problem' occurs elsewhere, so it would only be significant if 95% of the other factors fell below the 5% margin.

You might as well be arguing the 5 is a bigger number than 95.

Statistical relevancy is an objective measurement, determined in line with mathematics. As such only someone not in their right mind would argue that a statistically insignificant factor is significant.

This is why in statistical based science, you tend to argue with the methodology of determining significance rather than the results of the statistical analysis.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.28am
Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am 260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant". Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article. But that's an annual figure. 0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly. You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration. Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum. 260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate). In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources. As I said, you can argue that it's beneficial, which is fine (but a seperate argument) but you can't just claim the figures are insignificant and ignore them. That sort of approach is precisely what led to the rise of UKIP - "don't talk about it or you're a racist" If 0.5% of population growth is down to migration, then its an insignificant factor. It would arguably be more relevant, in terms of talking about the impact of population size, to focus on a factor that control of would implement a more significant result. Unless of course you can statistically determine that a 0.5% factor is a significant factor (ie that 95% of all other factors fall below the 0.5% ratio). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 9.28am

Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am

Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am

Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am

Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am

260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant".

Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article.

But that's an annual figure.
0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly.

You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant

You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration.

Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum.

260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate).

If 0.5% of population growth is down to migration, then its an insignificant factor. It would arguably be more relevant, in terms of talking about the impact of population size, to focus on a factor that control of would implement a more significant result.

Unless of course you can statistically determine that a 0.5% factor is a significant factor (ie that 95% of all other factors fall below the 0.5% ratio).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 18 Mar 15 9.40am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.25am Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.08am Quote npn at 11 Feb 2015 8.19am Quote moylerg at 11 Feb 2015 7.51am Quote Catfish at 11 Feb 2015 7.47am 260,000 people a year adding to the population is hardly "statistically insignificant". Statistics tend to look at overall percentages, part of the whole, and at 0.5%, it is close to statistically insignificant. He is correct in that and many other of his statements. A great article. But that's an annual figure. 0.5% may be a small figure, but over 10 years that's 5%, and growing constantly. You may believe imigration is beneficial, which is fine, but you can't realistically claim it's insignificant You need to determine the percentage of population growth that is generated by immigration. Even over 10 years, its not 5%, its still 0.5%, it doesn't increase as a percentage just because its x10 it remains fixed at 0.5% of the sum. 260,000 a year are down to immigration (no idea if those figures are accurate). In 10 years (comparatively the blink of an eye), that's 2.6 million. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that 2.6 million is a "statistically insignificant" figure, regardless of the population growth from non-immigration sources. As I said, you can argue that it's beneficial, which is fine (but a seperate argument) but you can't just claim the figures are insignificant and ignore them. That sort of approach is precisely what led to the rise of UKIP - "don't talk about it or you're a racist" Except of course it is, if its a 0.5% factor of the whole. Even at 5%, that would mean that 95% of the 'factor or problem' occurs elsewhere, so it would only be significant if 95% of the other factors fell below the 5% margin. You might as well be arguing the 5 is a bigger number than 95. Statistical relevancy is an objective measurement, determined in line with mathematics. As such only someone not in their right mind would argue that a statistically insignificant factor is significant. This is why in statistical based science, you tend to argue with the methodology of determining significance rather than the results of the statistical analysis. And that's where "lies, damned lies, and statistics" comes into play. Of course the vast majority of popuylation growth is down to birth rate of those already here, and statistically there is also a much higher birth rate among immigrant (and particularly third world immigrant) families. But hey, let's just ignore it!
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 18 Mar 15 9.40am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.25am