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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 11 of 25 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Stuk Top half 20 Mar 15 3.15pm
Quote kersal at 19 Mar 2015 11.26pm Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.57am Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.51am Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 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! See, you've already realized that it isn't a relevant factor, and that cultural factors on birth rates is itself a more relevant area to focus on. Interestingly the most relevant determanent of higher than average birth rates, isn't ethnic, its economic factors and education. Poverty seems to be linked with higher birth rates, far more than culture or ethnicity. So I'd start there, rather than blaming working migrants and immigration. Don't think antyone was 'blaming' anything. There you go again with your "if you talk about immigration you're blaming immigrants" Jesus, you may as well work for UKIP! What's the big deal about the population growth by the way? Since 2000, UK's population growth has been less than 0.7% per annum on average. US grows easily above 1%. Emerging markets grow 2-3% and this is considered a normal rate. Developed nations grow at anywhere between 0.5-1.5% and the UK is at the lower half. Some population growth is a very healthy thing; it expands all markets. No government would be alarmed by a population growth of less than 1% - no well-functioning government should be. If a politician uses this argument to make a point about immigration policies and immigrants, please know that it's nothing but propaganda. There may be other very real concerns about immigration, but this is not one of them. Trouble is it's not spread out among the UK, they all want to be in the South East. The population figures for Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland barely ever move up or down. Even if we say it's only a 1% increase per annum in the South East and we take the hugely generous population of 10m, that's 100,000 people per year for 15 years. 1.5m extra people, no matter how you cut it, is going to cause issues with supply and demand of everything. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 20 Mar 15 3.15pm

Quote kersal at 19 Mar 2015 11.26pm

Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.57am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.51am

Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 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!

See, you've already realized that it isn't a relevant factor, and that cultural factors on birth rates is itself a more relevant area to focus on.

Interestingly the most relevant determanent of higher than average birth rates, isn't ethnic, its economic factors and education. Poverty seems to be linked with higher birth rates, far more than culture or ethnicity.

So I'd start there, rather than blaming working migrants and immigration.

Don't think antyone was 'blaming' anything. There you go again with your "if you talk about immigration you're blaming immigrants"

Jesus, you may as well work for UKIP!

What's the big deal about the population growth by the way? Since 2000, UK's population growth has been less than 0.7% per annum on average. US grows easily above 1%. Emerging markets grow 2-3% and this is considered a normal rate. Developed nations grow at anywhere between 0.5-1.5% and the UK is at the lower half.

Some population growth is a very healthy thing; it expands all markets.

No government would be alarmed by a population growth of less than 1% - no well-functioning government should be. If a politician uses this argument to make a point about immigration policies and immigrants, please know that it's nothing but propaganda.

There may be other very real concerns about immigration, but this is not one of them.

Trouble is it's not spread out among the UK, they all want to be in the South East. The population figures for Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland barely ever move up or down.

Even if we say it's only a 1% increase per annum in the South East and we take the hugely generous population of 10m, that's 100,000 people per year for 15 years.

1.5m extra people, no matter how you cut it, is going to cause issues with supply and demand of everything.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

IMpalace London 20 Mar 15 3.34pm
Quote nickgusset at 20 Feb 2013 11.48pm Quote Cucking Funt at 20 Feb 2013 11.19pm Lefty sht, Nick. You wouldn't have given this 'story' houseroom if it had appeared in the DM. Hence my caveat in my original post, not sure if this is real or not.* If it was in the mail, I would have known for certain it was horses**e. "Mr Cameron. I'm a police officer. I've been sat here picking my arse for 9 months watching football. My staff are all bored, there's just far too many of us" Wow. That is some hard hitting stuff. Thoughts? Not sure if this is true or absolute bollocks made up by me in the last 45 seconds.
Alert a moderator to this post

IMpalace

London 20 Mar 15 3.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Feb 2013 11.48pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 20 Feb 2013 11.19pm

Lefty sh*t, Nick. You wouldn't have given this 'story' houseroom if it had appeared in the DM.

Hence my caveat in my original post, not sure if this is real or not.

If it was in the mail, I would have known for certain it was horses***e.

"Mr Cameron. I'm a police officer. I've been sat here picking my arse for 9 months watching football. My staff are all bored, there's just far too many of us"

Wow. That is some hard hitting stuff. Thoughts?

*Not sure if this is true or absolute bollocks made up by me in the last 45 seconds.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 20 Mar 15 4.27pm
Quote Stuk at 20 Mar 2015 3.15pm Quote kersal at 19 Mar 2015 11.26pm Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 9.57am Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 9.51am Quote npn at 18 Mar 2015 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! See, you've already realized that it isn't a relevant factor, and that cultural factors on birth rates is itself a more relevant area to focus on. Interestingly the most relevant determanent of higher than average birth rates, isn't ethnic, its economic factors and education. Poverty seems to be linked with higher birth rates, far more than culture or ethnicity. So I'd start there, rather than blaming working migrants and immigration. Don't think antyone was 'blaming' anything. There you go again with your "if you talk about immigration you're blaming immigrants" Jesus, you may as well work for UKIP! What's the big deal about the population growth by the way? Since 2000, UK's population growth has been less than 0.7% per annum on average. US grows easily above 1%. Emerging markets grow 2-3% and this is considered a normal rate. Developed nations grow at anywhere between 0.5-1.5% and the UK is at the lower half. Some population growth is a very healthy thing; it expands all markets. No government would be alarmed by a population growth of less than 1% - no well-functioning government should be. If a politician uses this argument to make a point about immigration policies and immigrants, please know that it's nothing but propaganda. There may be other very real concerns about immigration, but this is not one of them. Trouble is it's not spread out among the UK, they all want to be in the South East. The population figures for Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland barely ever move up or down. Even if we say it's only a 1% increase per annum in the South East and we take the hugely generous population of 10m, that's 100,000 people per year for 15 years. 1.5m extra people, no matter how you cut it, is going to cause issues with supply and demand of everything. Its more about the 'room' we have for these people...the States can soak this sort of expansion up for another 100years with the amount of room they have...we cant. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 20 Mar 15 4.27pm

Quote Stuk at 20 Mar 2015 3.15pm