More Farage wisdom

[darmstadt]

I certainly agree that reducing immigration from some parts of the commonwealth should be a much greater priority when you consider the relative contributions but I can't see any evidence that Farage views Eastern European migrants as more of a problem in terms of their quality, (he would be an idiot of he did) it is the unprecedented scale of that immigration, the impact it is having on our resources and the fact that the UK is powerless to do anything about it that rightly concerns him.

Interesting stuff here on relative contributions here. It all chimes with other sources.

Nigel Farage keeps on about EU migration, but non-EU migration is the greater problem » Spectator Blogs

The problem with the comparison of EU with commonwealth immigration is that it oversimplifies things. Yes, immigration from many Commonwealth countries has been a disaster but Indians in the UK do come out well, better than white Brits on some measures. Some EU migrants eg Poles, Hungarians, (ignoring the pressure of shear numbers and the fact that they don't actually do anything measurable for the rest of us) are ok too , but we should not have to take in people from the likes of Romania or Lithuania without proper checks on individuals.

I agree too, but checks then have to across the board, not just Roumania or Lithuania but every immigrant from whatever country they come from. Not only will these weed out the unwelcome but it would take so bloody long that people wouldn't bother in the end

[xoggoth]

Indeed. If we had proper checks on individuals I don't think many would be concerned about generalisations regarding ethnicity. That said, checks can rarely be that rigorous as the data does not exist. It therefore makes sense to look at the success or otherwise of previous migrants from various countries and raise or lower the barrier accordingly.

Interesting thing here about the minimal/non existent benefits of migrants in general to the existing population. And it's the BBC, not UKIP.

BBC News - More or Less: Calculating how much migrants cost or benefit a nation

You would expect the economy to grow if there are more people in the country.

Therefore, we have to think about what's happening to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of the resident population.
A few studies have considered that for the UK and other countries, but the impact is generally found to be quite small, according to Thomas Liebig, a migration specialist at the OECD. "If you look at it in per capita terms, most studies don't find a particularly large impact and these studies depend on a whole range of assumptions and the impact will depend on how you look at things," Liebig says.

[mos]

but we should not have to take in people from the likes of Romania or Lithuania without proper checks on individuals.

Yes, the checks, that they are not Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi purporting to be Romanians! As I always say, UKBA would not be able to control their own bladder ...

[mos]

Interesting thing here about the minimal/non existent benefits of migrants in general to the existing population. And it's the BBC, not UKIP.

BBC News - More or Less: Calculating how much migrants cost or benefit a nation

LOL! BBC is a mouthpiece of UKiP, because they hate Eastern Europeans and love Common Wealth.
I can imagine how fast you would accuse BBC of bias if it went against your prejudice against people from behind the Iron Curtain!

[hyperD]

BBC is a mouthpiece of UKiP...

60%+ penetration?!

Vote UKIP!

[alluvial]

LOL! BBC is a mouthpiece of UKiP, because they hate Eastern Europeans and love Common Wealth.
I can imagine how fast you would accuse BBC of bias if it went against your prejudice against people from behind the Iron Curtain!

Do you realise just how tedious you have become?

[mos]

Do you realise just how tedious you have become?

Another hypocrite ! Preach to the choir, big boy!

[hyperD]

Another hypocrite ! Preach to the choir, big boy!

Vote UKIP!

[sasguru]

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.

Oh dear.
All your pretentious, ungrammatical twaddle does not take away from the fact that you haven't grasped the basic statistical argument that if a group consisting of two populations produces more than average then either both groups are above average (on average), or one produces considerably more than the other (on average).
You've arbitrarily and irrelevantly introduced a variable that is not related to the population factors that we are trying to understand, by your own admission, contrary to all principles of mathematical modelling.
You gave some convoluted example of what you ungrammatically called "anecdotal", which was completely wrong.

Thanks for playing, I have you accurately filed under "ex poly- if that".
Probably best if you go back to your low-level IT work, its clear you have not, and never will, play with the big boys - that also explains your lack of understanding of what goes on in London.

[speling bee]

Oh dear.
All your pretentious, ungrammatical twaddle does not take away from the fact that you haven't grasped the basic statistical argument that if a group consisting of two populations produces more than average then either both groups are above average (on average), or one produces considerably more than the other (on average).
You've arbitrarily and irrelevantly introduced a variable that is not related to the population factors that we are trying to understand, by your own admission, contrary to all principles of mathematical modelling.
You gave some convoluted example of what you ungrammatically called "anecdotal", which was completely wrong.

Thanks for playing, I have you accurately filed under "ex poly- if that".
Probably best if you go back to your low-level IT work, its clear you have not, and never will, play with the big boys - that also explains your lack of understanding of what goes on in London.

The OP's misuse of "anecdotal" was a semantic error, not a grammatical error.

HTH