Students to be better off after Brexit... Watch

RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#1
There's a lot of misinformation around so here's something solid to chew on...

The size of the economy and its rate of growth are not everything, as the economists, the IMF and many others would have you believe.

What really matters is how much of the pie each of us gets.

A focus on training our own children to fill our need for doctors, nurses and other skilled workers and retraining those who later become out of work would greatly improve their opportunity and quality of life. Employment, productivity, personal wealth all improve.

But it only works in conjunction with a controlled but enlightened approach to immigration. That’s not possible in the EU.

So what do you think matters most: Quantity or Quality?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 11 months ago
#2
(Original post by RobinKent)
There's a lot of misinformation around so here's something solid to chew on...

The size of the economy and its rate of growth are not everything, as the economists, the IMF and many others would have you believe.

What really matters is how much of the pie each of us gets.

A focus on training our own children to fill our need for doctors, nurses and other skilled workers and retraining those who later become out of work would greatly improve their opportunity and quality of life. Employment, productivity, personal wealth all improve.

But it only works in conjunction with a controlled but enlightened approach to immigration. That’s not possible in the EU.

So what do you think matters most: Quantity or Quality?
Not if the economy tanks.
Not if things become more expensive.
You forget a small part of a large pie can be more than a large part of a small one.

We already train our own, but cant retain enough of them.
Students arent struggling for nursing places.
They only struggle for medicine because it is competitive. Not everyone can become a doctor.

You havent provided any solid argument as to why UK students will be better off after Brexit.
4
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
Your idea is reliant on the UK government being competent and as such is therefore not a reasonable position to hold.
1
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#4
(Original post by 999tigger)
Not if the economy tanks.
Not if things become more expensive.
You forget a small part of a large pie can be more than a large part of a small one.

We already train our own, but cant retain enough of them.
Students arent struggling for nursing places.
They only struggle for medicine because it is competitive. Not everyone can become a doctor.

You havent provided any solid argument as to why UK students will be better off after Brexit.
1. A short term price increase is inflationary and salaries (and part time job rates) rise. On entering the labour market starting salary is higher and will rise faster if there is higher inflation. Debts don't keep up in real terms, reducing the real costs of repayment.

2. Yes but wouldn't you be better off if we were to do both? Grow the economy and ensure you have more opportunity? Some short term pain for a better long term?

3. Making nursing courses subject to uni fees made no sense. Its like asking policemen to pay to join. So in the short term there may be some gaps but the correct solution is to figure out how many we will need and train them. Retrain older people whose jobs go away.

4. Medical schools are not saying they can't find good enough candidates. They simply fill their capacity and reject the rest. In their thousands. The limitation is that we have not invested in new medical schools though we are starting to.

As for retention, there is an element of that in all industries, often as the reality of work hits unrealistic expectations. That's how I felt.

Students will be better off because they will face less competition for skilled jobs, which will raise their incomes and provide life choices their grandparents never had.
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#5
(Original post by mojojojo101)
Your idea is reliant on the UK government being competent and as such is therefore not a reasonable position to hold.
Let's assume all governments are incompetent. The weight of evidence appears to support it!

It doesn't negate the points or the value of considering them.

For example, Australia has grown its economy very nicely while operating a points system for immigrants. Australian graduates have benefited - and so have the young. But their government is clearly in a mess...
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
I have no idea how your ideas in your OP really fit together with your opening statement in the title at all, to be totally honest.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#7
Report 11 months ago
#7
(Original post by RobinKent)
1. A short term price increase is inflationary and salaries (and part time job rates) rise. On entering the labour market starting salary is higher and will rise faster if there is higher inflation. Debts don't keep up in real terms, reducing the real costs of repayment.

2. Yes but wouldn't you be better off if we were to do both? Grow the economy and ensure you have more opportunity? Some short term pain for a better long term?

3. Making nursing courses subject to uni fees made no sense. Its like asking policemen to pay to join. So in the short term there may be some gaps but the correct solution is to figure out how many we will need and train them. Retrain older people whose jobs go away.

4. Medical schools are not saying they can't find good enough candidates. They simply fill their capacity and reject the rest. In their thousands. The limitation is that we have not invested in new medical schools though we are starting to.

As for retention, there is an element of that in all industries, often as the reality of work hits unrealistic expectations. That's how I felt.

Students will be better off because they will face less competition for skilled jobs, which will raise their incomes and provide life choices their grandparents never had.
1. You dont know what is going to happen,. If the economy tanks we will all be worse off. You dont say what the real term differences will be. they could be better and they could be worse. You are missing the point that student debt isnt real debt but quasi debt and the government can change the terms. i doubt students are concerned with student debt and brexit.

2. You are making a definitive statement. You dont know if it will pay off. It may and it may not. It also affects some people much worse than others.

3. Again you are missing the fact it is quasi debt. It does mean you get people who are willing to apply who have some sort of commitment to the profession, so its self selecting.

4. No you fail to understand what the issue is in the NHS and it isnt one of students, but wasting all that effort and poor retention plus loss of senior experienced doctors. Training thousands more doctors doesnt solve the issue of a very high % leaving after a short time.

5. Not if the economy isnt competitive and students capable. We will still have to trade and compete with the outside world. Completely closing your labour market isnt all benefits . In any event with fewer people coming from the EU it just means more are coming from outside the EU or would you like to stop all immigration.

I dont think you can make the statement as in your title because its based on nothing reliable. I havent found your arguments thus far to be persuasive. Anyway enjoy your beliefs and we will see.

There are too many variables at this stage and we dont even know what sort of Brexit we will get so claiming that students will be better off seems dumb before you know what the deal is.

Bye.
1
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 months ago
#8
(Original post by RobinKent)
Let's assume all governments are incompetent. The weight of evidence appears to support it!

It doesn't negate the points or the value of considering them.

For example, Australia has grown its economy very nicely while operating a points system for immigrants. Australian graduates have benefited - and so have the young. But their government is clearly in a mess...
We have probably the most dysfunctional government in post war history trying to pick apart one of the most complex landscapes of international agreements ever and you think they have the time, capability and mental bandwitdth to concurrently develop an entire immigration, education and tax policy platform?

Let's take another big government policy and see how that has been implemented to get an idea of how that might go.

Universal Credit was in the Tory 2010 manifesto. It was put into legislation in 2012, implemented in 2013 and 5 years later it has been plagued by problems, set backs and controversies and now won't be anywhere near being rolled out till at least 2022.

The UK government couldn't implement one system in what was a relatively calm time and you think they can implement a dozen or more systems in 5 months at one of the most politically turbulent times in modern British political history?

How desperately naive are you??
1
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#9
(Original post by mojojojo101)
We have probably the most dysfunctional government in post war history trying to pick apart one of the most complex landscapes of international agreements ever and you think they have the time, capability and mental bandwitdth to concurrently develop an entire immigration, education and tax policy platform?

Let's take another big government policy and see how that has been implemented to get an idea of how that might go.

Universal Credit was in the Tory 2010 manifesto. It was put into legislation in 2012, implemented in 2013 and 5 years later it has been plagued by problems, set backs and controversies and now won't be anywhere near being rolled out till at least 2022.

The UK government couldn't implement one system in what was a relatively calm time and you think they can implement a dozen or more systems in 5 months at one of the most politically turbulent times in modern British political history?

How desperately naive are you??
To be fair to them there have been the small issues of a global financial crisis, euro crisis and Brexit to deal with - something perhaps we might agree would challenge any government!

I am not particularly up to speed on UC. Most of us simplify things in our own lives so the ambition appears valid. Poor execution implicates others that include the IT firms and every other body involved in the process. I'd be disappointed if we didn't see governments with the ambition to improve things but I would be the first to suggest progressive change is the way to go. A ten year plan would have been better.

I can't agree more with you! We certainly can't get all those Brexit systems up and running in a few months even if so many already exist to service non EU business. Both sides realise the need for a transition period.

Realistic, pragmatic and willing to look at ideas in the round!
0
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 months ago
#10
(Original post by RobinKent)
What really matters is how much of the pie each of us gets.
British people have been getting too much pie. Have you seen the size of their waistlines?

You haven't made a credible case that we'll see an improvement in productivity or personal wealth as a consequence of leaving the EU.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
in theory.. yes, young people could benefit if skilled immigration was replaced by more inward-focused training...

But the problem is that it would make us all poorer.

That's the ideological choice here. Would you rather live in a poorer country, where young British people had better jobs, in a poorer country.. or would you rather live in a richer country, where young british-born people were less trained/had less work opportunities?

Its the same as the ideological manufacturing arguments.. we could manufacture a lot more of our products in the UK - supporting domestic jobs and the manufacturing industry... But... it would make us all poorer comparatively to do so, as the things we produced would be significantly more expensive than what we can import.

Both of these are just localism vs globalism.

If you are a localist - you would rather be slightly poorer but retain priority for the people and services and culture of your local area... you would rather pay more money to train local kids, and buy local services.. then accept cheaper and possibly better services from abroad.

if you are a globalist - you would rather be richer, you accept that you have less control internally, and you will loose some self-reliance, and accept greater influence from the outside.. because the result of accepting these is that everyone on average is richer, and can access the best the entire world has to offer.

The third group of people, who believe you can have the localist aproach, with the globalist advantages... are called: delusional.

---

(I haven't mentioned protectionism or isolationism here.. because in my eyes its a different category from localism. They have similarities, and they are all against globalism.. but they approach it in different ways. Isolationism aiming to cut ties.. protectionism.. punishing inward flows to protect local revenue... etc)
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#12
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
British people have been getting too much pie. Have you seen the size of their waistlines?

You haven't made a credible case that we'll see an improvement in productivity or personal wealth as a consequence of leaving the EU.
Yes, too much pie will do that...

I'm not sure its any more possible to make a credible case that productivity will improve if we remain. Yesterday's government migration report comments that unskilled migration is not a positive and should stop. Importing cheaper labour means there is little urgency to develop new more productive ways to do things and limited scope to increase the size or number of pies for our unskilled workers. Nor is there currently a need to upskill them. Its a tough place to be.

Personal wealth is a tricky one, complicated by uneven distribution and qualitative issues: The tasty pie versus the large pie?

The ability to exert control allows us to plan resource needs far better but it is not possible to argue that in the short term departure is not a cost.

As the BBC economics editor said yesterday though, much of that is already visible in lower activity, lower currency etc. A rebound when the terms are known is one of his scenarios...
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 months ago
#13
You've yet to say how brexit will make students 'better off' - pontificating on something [that i remain dubious you are an expert on] is one thing please do provide some solid facts and references for this claim.
0
reply
Thomazo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 months ago
#14
Misinformation. For starters, it is much more relevant how big the pie is. The pie was much more equally divided 200 years ago than it is now but still everybody is now better off because the pie is so much bigger. You can keep trying to divide a pie at size 100 however long you want, but the much more prudent way to improve everybody’s position is to increase the pie to 1,000,000. Even if 99% only had 1% of a 1,000,000 pie it would still be 100x compared to having 100% of a 100 pie.
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#15
(Original post by 999tigger)
1. You dont know what is going to happen,. If the economy tanks we will all be worse off. You dont say what the real term differences will be. they could be better and they could be worse. You are missing the point that student debt isnt real debt but quasi debt and the government can change the terms. i doubt students are concerned with student debt and brexit.

2. You are making a definitive statement. You dont know if it will pay off. It may and it may not. It also affects some people much worse than others.

3. Again you are missing the fact it is quasi debt. It does mean you get people who are willing to apply who have some sort of commitment to the profession, so its self selecting.

4. No you fail to understand what the issue is in the NHS and it isnt one of students, but wasting all that effort and poor retention plus loss of senior experienced doctors. Training thousands more doctors doesnt solve the issue of a very high % leaving after a short time.

5. Not if the economy isnt competitive and students capable. We will still have to trade and compete with the outside world. Completely closing your labour market isnt all benefits . In any event with fewer people coming from the EU it just means more are coming from outside the EU or would you like to stop all immigration.

I dont think you can make the statement as in your title because its based on nothing reliable. I havent found your arguments thus far to be persuasive. Anyway enjoy your beliefs and we will see.

There are too many variables at this stage and we dont even know what sort of Brexit we will get so claiming that students will be better off seems dumb before you know what the deal is.

Bye.
Thanks for adding to the debate, you raise some valid points. The aim was to stimulate debate about the qualitative versus purely quantitative 'size is everything' argument put forward by economists. As I responded in another comment, the taste of the pie versus the size does matter to us.

I liked your comment on the NHS and perhaps I can expand on the qualitative argument.

Net immigration has put pressure on the housing markets (yesterday's government migration report). Would senior staff be less likely to leave if better housing was available at more sensible prices? High property costs feed into higher staff salary demands and with a limited budget, fewer staff. With a rising workload that would certainly fuel an exodus.

Thanks again for contributing. I hope I've got you thinking more about qualitative, longer term positives for today's students.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
(Original post by RobinKent)
But it only works in conjunction with a controlled but enlightened approach to immigration. That’s not possible in the EU.
Yep - I agree with everything you say. The only problem is that although in the eyes of the voters, Brexit is only about immigration, in reality it is about more or less everything except immigration. So by solving immigration we are royally shafting ourselves up the posterior. It is like amputating yourself from the waist down to remove a verruca from your foot.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 months ago
#17
I agree that with a restriction on immigrant workers, employers here will have to train more Brits or offer better working conditions. They might also leave Britain, but tbh if the salaries were being spent abroad and youth unemployment is worsening (I'm not going to include zero hours contracts as employment), they were doing more harm than good in this country anyway.

It's a short and medium term hit, where employers cannot get the fully trained immigrants or those desperate enough to work for below minimum wage that they've been used to getting. I include the NHS in this, there are more than enough capable A Level students wanting to become doctors. It isn't their ability that means so many are rejected, it's the limited number of people the system is willing/able to train. It needs investment, and that will pay off in the long run. You'll also stop driving skilled doctors out of the country if you have enough of them to do the job we need them collectively to do rather than stretching the insufficient number we are currently struggling along on.
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#18
(Original post by ByEeek)
Yep - I agree with everything you say. The only problem is that although in the eyes of the voters, Brexit is only about immigration, in reality it is about more or less everything except immigration. So by solving immigration we are royally shafting ourselves up the posterior. It is like amputating yourself from the waist down to remove a verruca from your foot.
Time will tell. While technology has greatly improved weather forecasting because weather systems generally respect the laws of physics the same cannot be said for economic forecasts.

It's called the dismal profession for a reason, 'successfully forecasting 10 of the last three recessions'!

Verrucas are small, easily controlled and don't invade the rest of your body if you neglect treatment. Not a description most would give the EU!
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#19
(Original post by ThomH97)
I agree that with a restriction on immigrant workers, employers here will have to train more Brits or offer better working conditions. They might also leave Britain, but tbh if the salaries were being spent abroad and youth unemployment is worsening (I'm not going to include zero hours contracts as employment), they were doing more harm than good in this country anyway.

It's a short and medium term hit, where employers cannot get the fully trained immigrants or those desperate enough to work for below minimum wage that they've been used to getting. I include the NHS in this, there are more than enough capable A Level students wanting to become doctors. It isn't their ability that means so many are rejected, it's the limited number of people the system is willing/able to train. It needs investment, and that will pay off in the long run. You'll also stop driving skilled doctors out of the country if you have enough of them to do the job we need them collectively to do rather than stretching the insufficient number we are currently struggling along on.
Absolutely. Every journey starts with a first stem and without Brexit there is no economic need to make the investment, change the culture and increase opportunity.
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#20
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
in theory.. yes, young people could benefit if skilled immigration was replaced by more inward-focused training...

But the problem is that it would make us all poorer.

That's the ideological choice here. Would you rather live in a poorer country, where young British people had better jobs, in a poorer country.. or would you rather live in a richer country, where young british-born people were less trained/had less work opportunities?

Its the same as the ideological manufacturing arguments.. we could manufacture a lot more of our products in the UK - supporting domestic jobs and the manufacturing industry... But... it would make us all poorer comparatively to do so, as the things we produced would be significantly more expensive than what we can import.

Both of these are just localism vs globalism.

If you are a localist - you would rather be slightly poorer but retain priority for the people and services and culture of your local area... you would rather pay more money to train local kids, and buy local services.. then accept cheaper and possibly better services from abroad.

if you are a globalist - you would rather be richer, you accept that you have less control internally, and you will loose some self-reliance, and accept greater influence from the outside.. because the result of accepting these is that everyone on average is richer, and can access the best the entire world has to offer.

The third group of people, who believe you can have the localist aproach, with the globalist advantages... are called: delusional.

---

(I haven't mentioned protectionism or isolationism here.. because in my eyes its a different category from localism. They have similarities, and they are all against globalism.. but they approach it in different ways. Isolationism aiming to cut ties.. protectionism.. punishing inward flows to protect local revenue... etc)
But is anything in life really so binary? From an academic standpoint it simplifies debate to start form that viewpoint but by observation we see inconsistencies all around us. Often that's because distribution of wealth is so skewed and because we struggle to measure wealth, focusing purely on monetary values.

It may cost a few pence more to buy milk from the village store but it is quicker and more convenient than driving three miles to town to the supermarket. Plus we might enjoy chatting to the owner and learning what's going on on the community. We might also gain by feeling slightly charitable about keeping him in business and maintaining our community. Community has a value.

In the UK, more wealth is generated in the south-east than in other regions. Should we stop distributing some of that to the regions? It subsidises them and means the services and goods we buy from them actually cost me more. And yet I am happy to do so as I consider myself to be in the same 'tribe'.

China has managed to accommodate both communism and capitalism since it changed policy in 1978. While that grey area may eventually cause problems it demonstrates that a pragmatic approach can operate successfully for what is in human terms, the long term.

Grey areas are the norm, not the exception.

Rather than considering the third route delusional I suspect our brightest academics and policy advisors will be exploring it more in future.

If we fail to put a value on society them we condemn ourselves to forever mis-allocating our resources.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (168)
24.56%
Pop (170)
24.85%
Jazz (27)
3.95%
Classical (41)
5.99%
Hip-Hop (123)
17.98%
Electronic (45)
6.58%
Indie (110)
16.08%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise