Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything, gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.
Cut out a few parts to keep only the relevant ones, but there seem to be a series of assumptions that I would heavily doubt.

1) Your calculations are way too simple, so first of all, you won't realistically reach a point of having 0 unemployed people, simply because some people always switch jobs. An unemployment rate of around 4% is usually considered full employment for that reason.

2) You seem to think population and number of jobs are completely decoupled, but the population also affects consumption and consumption influences the number of available jobs... If your population stops growing, the number of jobs may stagnate or even go down. Or growth can become very slow. A counterbalance could come through export/trade, but given that you left the EU, you also gave up the common market, making that harder to achieve.

3) You complain about the inability of your government to control immigration within the EU and say it can't control the private sector. There are two issues here:
3A) The government could control non-EU migration, if it agreed with you that migration is such a problem, why does it not lower that type of migration to at least mitigate the problem? After all you say all parties admit the problem exists and apparently want to do something about it.
3B) That the government can't control the private sector is just laughable. Even the USA have a minimum wage and here you talk about zero-hour contracts as though nothing can be done about them. The EU does not forbid minimum wages, Germany only recently introduced some.

4) "Every job going to an immigrant is not going to a local": Again, a lot of these jobs wouldn't even exist if it weren't for population growth. Can you show me where on the following graph the unemployment rate is affected by EU immigration?
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...de&hl=en&dl=en
Your country must have had a lot of EU immigration in the late 80s and early 90s and then threw all the immigrants out until 2008? Why is the rate dropping since July 2013? And didn't you just say homelessness has gone up between 2013 and now? Why?

5) The US had "full employment" for a while and still had homeless people. How does that fit your idea that employment and homelessness are directly linked?

6) Why is the number of houses not growing fast enough? Apparently this was never a big issue in the past, but now after the housing bubble burst it is? Couldn't have something to do with capitalism and the bubble having destroyed the confidence of investors in real estate and a shortage giving owners higher profits?