More Farage wisdom

[alluvial]

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

I don't think you understand anecdotal too well. Anecdotal is based upon personal experience but is in effect a retelling of somebody's personal experience. I was trying to point out that a person can have personal experience of something, but, if he relates this to other people, without corroborating evidence, it will be seen as anecdotal and hence held to be unreliable no matter what the veracity of the tale is. I suppose I could have been more succinct, but I thought more words were better than less.

The other thing to remember is that anecdotal evidence should not necessarily be disregarded. It may not have statistical analysis to back it up but it may have a basis in fact and warrant further study.

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.

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.

My original objection was to your single assertion and I did not take into account any previous argument that you may have made and I still stand by my assertion, that without reference to your earlier posts then the logic was unsound.

However, even when your earlier posts are taken into account, your statement in response to Xog's:

My conclusion about London was that I really doubted Migration Watch's figures about net contribution of immigrants, when applied to London, since the region with the most immigrants (London, with > 50% non indigenous inhabitants) is also the most productive.

Is still flawed. Your conclusion simply does not necessarily follow, as you cannot relate productivity of a region simply to the number of inhabitants, which is what you have done.

[sasguru]

However, even when your earlier posts are taken into account, your statement in response to Xog's:

Is still flawed. Your conclusion simply does not necessarily follow, as you cannot relate productivity of a region simply to the number of inhabitants, which is what you have done.

I'm not relating productivity to the number of inhabitants , rather the proportion and assumed relative productivity of populations in that region.

Let me try to be more concrete since I've learned on CUK that IT people don't do abstract.


Let 100 be the UK standard for productivity on some scale - and the numbers in brackets are the % in the London population (as a good estimation):

Scenario1:

Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=90 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=100 (number=45)

Therefore average productivity overall = ((90x55) + (100x45)) / 100 = 94.5

Now we know this false since productivity in London is higher than the rest of the UK.

Scenario 2

Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=90 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=130(number=45)

Therefore average productivity overall = ((90x55) + (130x45)) / 100 = 108

Now this figure of 108 is more likely since we know productivity in London is higher than the Uk in general, but getting there assumes a massive 30% increase in productivity for the indigenous Londoner compared to the Uk in general. If the immigrant productivity is less than 90% of the Uk average there would be a corresponding EVEN LARGER increase for the London indigenous worker, so this scenario becomes even more implausible.


Scenario 3:


Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=105 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=110 (number=45)

Therefore productivity overall = ((105x55) + (110x45)) / 100 = 107.25

Overall producticvity similar to Scenario 2 .



Scenarios 1 and 2 are roughly what MigrationWatch claim is happening.
But we know 1 is false for sure and 2 is unlikely.
It is my contention given the range of industries and hence range of immigrants coming to London that something like Scenario 3 is a more likely scenario by far.

I've left out Scenario 4 which is also a possibility, productivity for immigrants much greater than the indigenous. Now having worked in finance and biotech for 20 years I've discounted that scenario , in the professions I find everyone equally dedicated.

PS In the figures above I've been very conservative:
London has > 8% productivity increase per person than the UK, for example.

[alluvial]

I'm not relating productivity to the number of inhabitants , rather the proportion and assumed relative productivity of populations in that region.

Let me try to be more concrete since I've learned on CUK that IT people don't do abstract.


Let 100 be the UK standard for productivity on some scale - and the numbers in brackets are the % in the London population (as a good estimation):

Scenario1:

Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=90 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=100 (number=45)

Therefore average productivity overall = ((90x55) + (100x45)) / 100 = 94.5

Now we know this false since productivity in London is higher than the rest of the UK.

Scenario 2

Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=90 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=130(number=45)

Therefore average productivity overall = ((90x55) + (130x45)) / 100 = 108

Now this figure of 108 is more likely since we know productivity in London is higher than the Uk in general, but getting there assumes a massive 30% increase in productivity for the indigenous Londoner compared to the Uk in general.


Scenario 3:


Productivity of average immigrant Londoner=105 (number =55)
Productivity of average indigenous Londoner=110 (number=45)

Therefore productivity overall = ((105x55) + (110x45)) / 100 = 107.25

Overall producticvity similar to Scenario 2 .



Scenarios 1 and 2 are roughly what MigrationWatch claim is happening.
But we know 1 is false for sure and 2 is unlikely.
It is my contention given the range of industries and hence range of immigrants coming to London that something like Scenario 3 is a more likely scenario by far.

I've left out Scenario 4 which is also a possibility, productivity for immigrants much greater than the indigenous. Now having worked in finance and biotech for 20 years I've discounted that scenario , in the professions I find everyone equally dedicated.

PS In the figures above I've been very conservative:
London has > 8% productivity increase per person than the UK, for example.

But what you have given above is that for any given population that is comprised of smaller defined populations or groups, that the overall productivity of the population can be defined as the sum of the overall productivity of the individual groups. If the relative productivity of a group member is a constant, then the overall productivity must be directly proportional to the number of members of the group.

Also your analysis above appears to make the assumption that the overall productivity of London is only dependant on the area's population. You should be considering the overall productivity of London and include other contributors that are population independent. In this case your equations above could be stated as:

The overall productivity, P = n1p1 + n2p2 + U

Where n1 and n2 are the numbers of members in each group and p1 and p2 the relative productivity of the individual group members and U is the contribution due to unknown factors and will in itself be the sum of an indeterminate number of non-human and external contributors.

If U is negligible, then your analysis above will be a good approximation, but, if U is large, then the actual makeup of a population becomes less important and so the overall productivity cannot be assumed to be purely due to the composition of its constituent populations.

Even with a negligible value for U, the equation is still too simplistic as it ignores the individual compositions of the two groups which should themselves be broken down into further, smaller groups that would give a better insight into the contribution that each group makes to the overall productivity of London.

[DodgyAgent]

I thought I was dull

[alluvial]

I thought I was dull

This is fun for some people.

[sasguru]

But what you have given above is that for any given population that is comprised of smaller defined populations or groups, that the overall productivity of the population can be defined as the sum of the overall productivity of the individual groups. If the relative productivity of a group member is a constant, then the overall productivity must be directly proportional to the number of members of the group.


Also your analysis above appears to make the assumption that the overall productivity of London is only dependant on the area's population. You should be considering the overall productivity of London and include other contributors that are population independent. In this case your equations above could be stated as:

The overall productivity, P = n1p1 + n2p2 + U

Where n1 and n2 are the numbers of members in each group and p1 and p2 the relative productivity of the individual group members and U is the contribution due to unknown factors and will in itself be the sum of an indeterminate number of non-human and external contributors.

If U is negligible, then your analysis above will be a good approximation, but, if U is large, then the actual makeup of a population becomes less important and so the overall productivity cannot be assumed to be purely due to the composition of its constituent populations.

Even with a negligible value for U, the equation is still too simplistic as it ignores the individual compositions of the two groups which should themselves be broken down into further, smaller groups that would give a better insight into the contribution that each group makes to the overall productivity of London.

1. If your self-created U is non-population dependent, it doesn't negate the crux of the argument, which is that it is unlikely that there is a massive difference between the immigrant and non-immigrant groups. What you are arguing is that London has an X-factor that is U. That may or may not be true but it affects both groups equally or not at all.


2. I used average productivity, this takes into account the differences between an immigrant doctor and an immigrant toilet cleaner. Of course we could if we had the data break it down into better constituent groups.

Like I said, by not getting the point either
1. You are deliberately being obtuse
Or
2. You can't get it.

The evidence is beginning to mount for the latter.

[sasguru]

I thought I was dull

You are.

[alluvial]

1. If your self-created U is non-population dependent, it doesn't negate the crux of the argument, which is that it is unlikely that there is a massive difference between the immigrant and non-immigrant groups. What you are arguing is that London has an X-factor that is U. That may or may not be true but it affects both groups equally or not at all.


2. I used average productivity, this takes into account the differences between an immigrant doctor and an immigrant toilet cleaner. Of course we could if we had the data break it down into better constituent groups.

Like I said, by not getting the point either
1. You are deliberately being obtuse
Or
2. You can't get it.

The evidence is beginning to mount for the latter.

And the evidence is rapidly mounting for you not even achieving a C grade CSE in mathematics.

I did not state that U exists, I stated that you have assumed that all of London's productivity is dependant on its population and that it is possible that unknown factors exist that are not population dependant, this is U. The value of U may be zero, it may be very small or it may be very large. But whatever the value is, it cannot be ignore and has to be considered in any analysis of what is the main drivers of London's productivity.

By taking the average productivity, you will roll-up the producers with the users and a small number of producers could, in London, easily out-perform a large number of users. So, any analysis of immigrant (or indigenous for that matter) productivity becomes meaningless without an understanding of how disparate groups contribute to the whole.

So, to answer your last two points, I may be obtuse, but not deliberately so, but, what I do get is that your analytical abilities are sadly not at the level that your frequent self-aggrandisement seems to suggest.

[xoggoth]

London has the greatest extremes of wealth in the UK. It is rich but that wealth is disproportionately owned by a wealthy minority which does include many wealthy foreigners. However, inner London is the most deprived part of the UK. There is a higher percentage of households on low income in London than in the rest of the country and ethnic minorities account for a disproportionate number of these.

Almost a third of people receiving homelessness support in London are foreign nationals, they cost the councils between £25 million and £35 million a year.

UK: low income and ethnicity - The Poverty Site
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/in...n-1581185.html
One third claiming cash aid for homelessness are from abroad - London - News - London Evening Standard

[OwlHoot]

... what I do get is that your analytical abilities are sadly not at the level that your frequent self-aggrandisement seems to suggest.