More Farage wisdom

[alluvial]

I haven't deleted anything.
Can you explain how it "smacks of kindergarten logic"?

In that thread I recall saying:

If London immigrants don't make a net contribution on average (as claimed by MW) and they constitute > 50% of the population in London (accepted fact) then they are being "carried" by the < 50% of the indigenous population in London who must be super-productive since not only are the carrying these immigrants but most of the country (since London is economically the most successful and a net contributor) .
Or MW figures are wrong and at least in London , immigrants make a net contribution on average, which is why London is so successful.

And having read the MW document in some depth, I came to the latter conclusion as being more likely.

Pray tell what your conclusions are, and why you think mine are "kindergarten level"?

I haven't any conclusions that I would publicise as I haven't researched this in any depth. I do have a number of opinions that are based on experience and observation. But, the question is spurious and designed to divert from your original conclusion that:

I believe immigrants in London must make a net contribution since (1) they are in the majority and (2) London is so successful.

Your simple assertion is fallacious as the assertion that they make a net contribution does not necessarily follow from your given reasons. I think we can agree that both (1) and (2) are true, but you have not taken into account previous conditions. Is London more successful than before the number of immigrants increased, if yes, then your assertion maybe true. However, was London less successful before the immigrant numbers increased due to economic factors?
So I expect we you will now revert to ad hominem attacks but it is plain that your original assertion is, as I said, kindergarten.

[alluvial]

After a bumper year last year, I'm taking some time off.
Have you got anything useful to say about what we are discussing or is it all
Although given your logical skills I'm very sure you have to work all year for a relative pittance.

Ah, looks like you have reverted to type already.

[sasguru]

I haven't any conclusions that I would publicise as I haven't researched this in any depth. I do have a number of opinions that are based on experience and observation. But, the question is spurious and designed to divert from your original conclusion that:
.

The reason we use statistics is that anecdotal opinions lead to flawed conclusions, as I said in my previous posts

Your simple assertion is fallacious as the assertion that they make a net contribution does not necessarily follow from your given reasons. I think we can agree that both (1) and (2) are true,
.

My "assertion" is not fallacious, because I have not put forward any assertion - I have put forward two possibilities one of which must logically be true, if (1) and (2) are true:
Either London immigrants are underproductive and therefore the minority native Londoners are over-productive to compensate
OR
Both populations are roughly the same and on average over-productive compared to the rest of the UK population.

For the sake of argument let's ignore the 3rd possibility which could be likely for all we know: London immigrants are MORE productive than the native population.

I have said that on my judgement the second possibility is more likely, evidence being sparse. FWIW I believe the immigrant population in London is similar in productive capacity to the native pop precisely because it's not selected*, so will probably follow a bell curve. Plenty of clever immigrants in the City counterbalanced by Romanian toilet cleaners.

*In other areas immigrants are "selected" by the work e.g. in Lincolnshire they will usually be poorly educated crop pickers, just as in the Northern mill towns, the Pakistanis who came in the 60s were often poorly educated villagers.
In London the whole spectrum rocks up.

.... but you have not taken into account previous conditions. Is London more successful than before the number of immigrants increased, if yes, then your assertion maybe true. However, was London less successful before the immigrant numbers increased due to economic factors?
So I expect we you will now revert to ad hominem attacks but it is plain that your original assertion is, as I said, kindergarten.

I don't know if London was more successful prior to the New labour immigration rush - most articles I have read in the financial press anyway, now put London at the top of financial cities when it wasn't in the 60s,70s or 80s.
I think the more important criterion is how much excess London generates for the regions. And if a majority of people in London were unproductive I would have expected that excess to fall, but there is no evidence that happened.

On the basis of the above, I would argue that your riposte to my argument is more kindergarten than my my original argument.

[DodgyAgent]

People use Switzerland as a model of how the UK should be with regard to the EU.
Here's the reality

What is Switzerlands employment situation compared to the rest of the EU?

[sasguru]

What is Switzerlands employment situation compared to the rest of the EU?

Pretty good especially for the huge number of immigrants they have (more per capita than here)
Probably similar to Germany's

[alluvial]

The reason we use statistics is that anecdotal opinions lead to flawed conclusions, as I said in my previous posts

With which I agree although anecdotal evidence can be shown to be true by personal experience, but, as that experience can itself be seen as anecdotal which is why it can be dangerous to put forward experience as proof.

My "assertion" is not fallacious, because I have not put forward any assertion - I have put forward two possibilities one of which must logically be true, if (1) and (2) are true:

No, you made "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief" that is the definition of an assertion. This assertion did not make reference to any earlier posts and so you assertion must be taken on its own merit. Unfortunately, that merit was lacking as the assertion does not necessarily follow the two reasons you give.

I don't know if London was more successful prior to the New labour immigration rush - most articles I have read in the financial press anyway, now put London at the top of financial cities when it wasn't in the 60s,70s or 80s.
I think the more important criterion is how much excess London generates for the regions. And if a majority of people in London were unproductive I would have expected that excess to fall, but there is no evidence that happened.

On the basis of the above, I would argue that your riposte to my argument is more kindergarten than my my original argument

I was not stating facts, I was giving further options that you must consider before you make the statement that you have. It is possible that London is successful "in spite" of the influx of immigrants. You cannot make the simple statement that you did as it does not consider all factors and most importantly, ignores any prior conditions.

[DodgyAgent]

Pretty good especially for the huge number of immigrants they have (more per capita than here)
Probably similar to Germany's

I think you will find it is the lowest in europe. So perhaps if we all left the EU everyone would have a job!

[DodgyAgent]

After a bumper year last year (of being a twat), I'm taking some time off (if only).
.

[sasguru]

With which I agree although anecdotal evidence can be shown to be true by personal experience, but, as that experience can itself be seen as anecdotal which is why it can be dangerous to put forward experience as proof.
.

Either you're getting confused or you need to put your point more succinctly, rather than going in circles.
Anecdotal evidence = personal experience.

No, you made "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief" that is the definition of an assertion. This assertion did not make reference to any earlier posts and so you assertion must be taken on its own merit. Unfortunately, that merit was lacking as the assertion does not necessarily follow the two reasons you give.
.

If an assertion is a "a confident and forceful statement of belief " then fair enough I made one, and I stick by it. That assertion had a context in the original claims of MW, which a little statistical thinking showed is highly unlikely in a London context. Also as I explained, it does logically follow from the 2 reasons UNLESS you assume that native Londoners are extraordinarily productive.
While that may be true it unlikely. When making conclusions without all the facts (which is most of the time) we must rely on plausibility and the most likely scenario.

I was not stating facts, I was giving further options that you must consider before you make the statement that you have. It is possible that London is successful "in spite" of the influx of immigrants. You cannot make the simple statement that you did as it does not consider all factors and most importantly, ignores any prior conditions.

You are right, it is possible that London is successful "in spite" of the influx of immigrants. However as I explained above that is highly unlikely. Interestingly many London employers have come forward saying that they employ immigrants BECAUSE they are more productive, so there is even a possibility that the 3rd option above may be true (although I don't believe it) - that London's success is due to immigrants.


I venture to suggest that if you don't understand the above points you :
1) are being deliberately obtuse
OR
2) may have to consider the possibility you don't have the intellectual apparatus to think clearly.

[sasguru]

I think you will find it is the lowest in europe. So perhaps if we all left the EU everyone would have a job!

Yes perhaps