Anyone else really worried now?

[MrsBlackthorn]

My work has started quietly drawing up contingency plans for if Brexit happens. Same at DH's work. Could mean lots of jobs moving to Germany and Ireland at both our firms. We're already seeing far fewer people investing or spending money.

I'm bloody terrified. Could lose my job. House could end up in negative equity. And for what?

I don't even think it's "project fear" from the government anymore... News today showed investors are taking money out of the UK faster than anytime since the crash. People with "skin in the game" voting with their money.

I understand that for lots of people the EU referendum isn't about money. however, because of a lot of it leaving, stopping coming in, or just simply being worth less... Well that leaves us screwed for a very long time. Fewer jobs. Less tax money coming in - so less money for the NHS and so on. So even if we 'take back control', of what exactly. what will we be 'in control' of?

I'm really worried about "Leave" happening and me and my family being utterly f*ed in a few months time as a result. Has the country lost its mind?

Anyone else worried about where this leaves us?

I noticed upthread a bit that you like to use terms like economically illiterate. Now we're supposed to agree with you that in the face of a shorter supply of labour, the government will conspire with its corporate cronies and to import cheap labour under a visa scheme for Poundland?

No dear. Those jobs where an argument can be made that it's cheaper to import than train. I doubt Poundland would qualify (aren't they already getting a lot of staff for free from the DWP?) but there are plenty of low-paid jobs that require a level of training and skill that I suspect businesses would prefer to come fully formed, particularly from countries that have vocational pathways in the education system, rather than have to train them from scratch here.

Or are we paying for a renewed and revitalised skills and training system organised by the state rather than employers out of the apparently bottomless and fictional £350m? Because we know employers reduce rather than increase their apprenticeships and training programmes in economic downturns.

This is essentially contents versus malcontents. Some people can see we're in deep trouble, some people can't.

I broadly agree with this. And I also entirely agree that something does need to change.

The problem is that not all changes are for the better, and I do not believe that this particular change would improve the lot of low-paid workers.

What I'm saying is that while "Remain" are intellectually right (in my opinion), it's a terribly unappealing case to make, because the options are "bad" and "worse".

The main issue is that Labour have no credible response to the concerns of their support base, no credible alternative model. And it's getting exposed very badly during this referendum. Saying "it could get worse" doesn't cut it, because people need hope.

(I also don't have an answer by the way. I'm just complaining.)

(I also don't have an answer by the way. I'm just complaining.)

Nothing wrong with that, it's a great British tradition

The problem is that not all changes are for the better, and I do not believe that this particular change would improve the lot of low-paid workers.

This, and pretty much everything Chalala said. I feel like people are saying 'anything has to be better than this', and I can completely understand why.

The trouble is, it can get worse.

Mistigirl the influx of cheap labour has driven down the labour inputs on the public sector budget spreadsheets - they are informed in a larger sense by market rates.

As for the private sector, I agree with your possible alternative responses (see my posts above).

Jassy

No dear.

Is patronising a bit like breathing for you?

Just heard a good analogy on Radio 4 re. Referendum - to explain the Treasury's worst case scenario and how the prediction was arrived at.

Treasury document say the economy will be 6% smaller in six years time if we leave.

This is not saying that our economy will be 6% smaller than it is now in 15 years- it is saying the projected "potential" growth would be 6% smaller (with a particular set of figures entered into a particular economics model).

So the analogy is: if you ask will I have put on weight in 15 years time? No-one can possibly answer.

However, if you enter in the proposal that I drink a bottle of coke each day, then the outcome to that model would be that yes, you will likely put weight on.

That's where the Treasury's model stops. They don't eneter any ways that the outcome could be averted or altered - ie exercising more, cutting down on other sweet treats etc.

The Treasury model only enters dire information to create a dire outcome (they do not enter any mitigating actions that would be in fact take place by the BoE and the Government to ease the transition).

Even then the Treasury can only come up with the forumla that would predict a short, shallow recession of (las seen in the late 1950s).

They don't even enter into the forumla that if the pound fell, that exports would increase (as happens).

The outcome from an economic model is entirely and crucially dependent upon the statistics you select to enter.

Financial Times analysis -
next.ft.com/content/d05c4b60-20d8-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

As for dismissing the pound falling - I do hope you aren't having the wool pulled over your eyes by the Government and understand how the markets actually work?

The establishment are certainly banking on us all being a bunch of numpties on how the City works. We have a floating currency to enable us to react and mitigate world events etc. (unlike the cumbersome Euro- remember that currency they inisted we join or we'd close ourselves off from the world?)

Just in case: Sell on the rumour, buy on the news. It is entirely how the market works and what Farage was clearly referring to. Anyone imagining this as dismissing the economy is, I'm afraid, economically illterate themselves.

It must be a problem for some to realise that they have been hoodwinked by the estibalishment line. Interesting to hear Assange yesterday describing the Blairite position on the EU as a position on the right for new empire - where are the Labour left speaking for the low paid in this country?

www.yourdictionary.com/buy-the-rumor-sell-the-fact

Is patronising a bit like breathing for you?

Not usually, I thought I'd just follow your lead.

Even then the Treasury can only come up with the forumla that would predict a short, shallow recession of (las seen in the late 1950s).

And that's when they are trying their very hardest to catastrophise

Thanks for the FT link.

I am baffled that one of the main reasons for voting leave is that it will be better for lower paid workers when one of the other major reasons is to free businesses from bureaucracy. Does anyone really believe that businesses with less regulation are going to start paying people higher wages? Membership of the EU has increased workers' rights. It's highly doubtful we would have implemented a NMW if we hadn't signed up to the social chapter.

If anyone is in any doubt, look across to the US, where business reigns supreme and see how the low-paid are treated there. Vast inequalities between rich and poor.

the influx of cheap labour has driven down the labour inputs on the public sector budget spreadsheets - they are informed in a larger sense by market rates

I am not sure what you mean by this (and I'm a real live, practising economist so it's not a question of being unfamiliar with terminology). Council budgets for carers are not, primarily, set with regards to the market price of labour: usually councils are working within external, often government-imposed budget constraints. The upshot is that, if labour costs rise, the response is more likely to be to manage demand than to raise the total budget. In the case of carers, you manage demand by (a) increasing the threshold for receiving care services (b) by charging users more and (c) by reducing the quality of care (time spent per person).

That's makes me feel better mistigirl, I couldn't understand it either, but then I am not a practicing economist!

80k the bit of the supply-demand equation that people forget is that if the supply of labour falls, and the price of labour rises, then the demand for labour also falls ...

Mistigirl I agree with you in the short-term; in the medium to long term, budgets adjust to price inputs (whatever they may be). They're not written in a vacuum. How a government prioritises quality of care is a political decision as well as economic one.

I would be more inclined towards remain if I actually thought it would benefit my dc in regards to housing, uniiversity loans and job prospects.

The affordable house building programme if it went to Key workers who resided in the UK providing a valuable service rather than someone like the chap we discussed earlier who managed to commandeer a 4 bed house.

My dc have a student loan and will have to pay it back. Sone of the Europeans students have defaulted and disappeared. How is that right or fair?

It is hard enough to get where you want to go these days but it will probably get even worse if we stay.

I do take the point about Japan and immigration but alot of the immigrants bring their parents to the UK so they may use the NHS and the immigrants themselves will get old so I'm not convinced constant mass immigration is helping.

MrsB That’s fascinating about Japan. They seem to be actually finding solutions to the eternal ageing population issue. It’s a fact that no country can import young migrants ad infinitum – it might solve today’s problem, but those young migrants will themselves age, and so the issue gets multiplied up in the future. Problem is that no government ever looks beyond the next election, everything they do is short-term.

Not for this thread, but I’d like to see long-term government policy to stabilise or even reduce population levels. Not by following China’s example, but with something like tax breaks/incentives to “stop at two”. Automation of jobs is a step in the right direction.

I do take the point about Japan and immigration but alot of the immigrants bring their parents to the UK so they may use the NHS and the immigrants themselves will get old so I'm not convinced constant mass immigration is helping.

This is much less true of EU immigrants than non-EU immigrants.

Japan is an instructive example in many ways: if you fail to replace your working age population, your economy stagnates. It's also worth considering who cares for an increasing elderly population in these circumstances: the answer is generally women, working unpaid.

Not by following China’s example, but with something like tax breaks/incentives to “stop at two”

The UK birth rate is already below 2 ie below replacement level.

Stagnation or even shrinking of the economy is fine, providing the population is also stable or decreasing. I'm firmly of the belief that the much-trumpeted economic growth the UK is seeing is a direct reflection of the increasing population. The overall cake gets bigger, but there are more of us needing a slice. We're not getting richer per head.

The UK birth rate is already below 2 ie below replacement level.

Excellent - so why is the population increasing?

They seem to be actually finding solutions to the eternal ageing population issue. It’s a fact that no country can import young migrants ad infinitum – it might solve today’s problem, but those young migrants will themselves age, and so the issue gets multiplied up in the future.

It's not an eternal problem really, it's directly linked to the abnormally large baby-boom generation. If we import enough young people to subsidize them as they get older, and no more, then in theory we can stabilise the population numbers at an economically sustainable level. I'll admit I have no idea how high this demographically stable level would be, though.

Limer
"The UK birth rate is already below 2 ie below replacement level.

Excellent - so why is the population increasing?"

I've been wondering that.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10920523/EU-students-fail-to-repay-record-40m-in-university-loans.html

Mother that was one of the first broadsheet links I found but I gather it's got worse year on year. Radio 4 covered it last week.

(actually if the UK population birth rate is below 2, then in my imaginary scenario we'd still need to have some immigration just to remain stable!)