Jump to content


Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


VILLAMARV last won the day on August 14 2019

VILLAMARV had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,302 Excellent


  • Rank
    Star Player

Recent Profile Visitors

3,493 profile views
  1. try not to vent at your mate, he'll have a load of stuff going on at the mo. Childhood friends is kind of the standard choice in my experience. Just be a good mate and help out if he needs it. It's all that matters in the end. I did it once. The good bit was the morning of the wedding. "Don't let me drink anything Marv" "Ok mate. Would you like a double Brandy to steady the nerves though" "Yes"
  2. Been waiting for the rumoured green kit. I'm a bit gutted it doesn't instantly make me want to reach for my wallet if I'm honest.
  3. I don't really know how to start to respond here. I'll plump for - Opening line that is neither sneering nor combative. A strange response in the context of how the discussion has gone really from my perspective. More proof of what an emotive topic/thread this is. Sigh. FWIW I agree with much of this, but find the way it is framed towards me rather confusing and a little bizarre. You seem to be hooked on the idea of me using data selectively for some obscure underhand reason when someone else has introduced it into the discussion, other people misinterpreted what it said and I've weighed in, using the same quoted information, and attempted to stop that misinterpretation being used as proof of individuals being mistaken, as per this post So literally attempting to address the thing you seem to be accusing me of when you say "people jumping on a particular bit of data or report or conclusion to support their already held point of view". In challenging this I literally introduced other factors in to the discussion - while at the same time doffing the cap to the crudeness of my dragging two sets of research and comparing the results in the process! - I also made the point that solely looking at aggregated data does not provide a complete picture and literally say at the end I am in no way trying to ascribe any suggestion of causation. I notice you didn't quote any of this while choosing the phrase "people who talk about the issue properly" to make a point about 'other factors'. Like I've said. To me it is an utterly bizarre response to what I've written. But there's the bits I can agree with you on. So, it seems, we share much common ground around the actual issue. If you are particularly interested in my POV, perhaps asking what it is may be a better way of going about finding out what it is, rather than this suggestive nonsense presumably fuelled by some strange presumption that I would think any differently? If you don't like the thing I highlighted in the data that was presented to us, then feel free to disagree with it.

    U.S. Politics

    Does someone want to try and explain the appeal of Warren to me? I'm not getting it.
  5. fair enough, I'm not arguing (esp. with an economics bod!) that variance equals confidence intervals - but one is still a function of the other. It's a good enough way of representing how certain an average metric is, given the amount of variation observed in the data. As such I think it's fair to point out that the possibility for the effect of immigration as having a negative effect on wages could be as much as the lowest 30th percentile of the distribution. (and yes, all within the confines of accepting the results of this individual report as the basis for the discussion) - 'closer' a poor choice of words in my claret-y word edit (the game was about to start ffs ) perhaps relevant/may have relevance would be better? 'It's not implausable' is a bit wordy but the point I was trying to make. I can't look at that distribution and ignore that there is evidence for a certain percentage of people (however many they are) where immigration has had a negative effect on their income. Even if overall we can agree that the average is outweighed by the majority experiencing a positive effect. The point here for me was people were taking what you'd posted as proof that people were inventing a narrative based solely on perception and I believe the 3 quotes you quoted were misinterpreted by a few people. (to summarise them, as I understand them, 1. overall when aggregated the effect was minimal, 2. immigrants saw their wages reduced [especially graduates], and 3. natives saw a decrease at the bottom percentiles, which was offset by the gains at the higher percentiles overall) you're right that it's subjective, and I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that it's not a small number. Averages are great for finding the average which in this case is close to zero. However that isn't evidence against an individual that has experienced a decrease in wages and no matter how small, is likely to be more consequential to those at the lower percentiles. (not that you were saying this, but others picked it up and ran with it) Basically elaborating on what peter said here: If the question is what is the average effect of immigration on wage distribution that graph is a great source. I'm not trying to ascribe any causation here - more hypothesising, but If the bigger question people are struggling with is to find an economic motivation for 17.4m voters to vote leave (and I've noticed i messed the ONS figures up a bit in the OP - I'll go back and edit it now) and we run with the idea or suggestion that the lower 30th percentile may be effected what number of actual people is that? Roughly 32m English people alone are in the 0-60 wage percentile (Going off those equivalised figures I am quoting from the ONS). While the effect on the average wage might be small, the amount of people it may negatively effect is not necessarily therefore inconsequential.
  6. drop the captain, Brazilians are rubbish, El Ghazi rubbish, Jota rubbish. 2 ****ing games
  7. Down but not out. Plenty there to be happy with. Mistakes and deflections aside we controlled that from what I saw. We lacked a clinical finisher. Jack could have had a hat trick today.
  8. except of course the NMW does not apply to the self employed, people on employment schemes, people on pre-appreticeship schemes, Student placements/shadowing, Volunteers, family members of employers etc Going back 15-20 years ago to my time in the hotel trade there were government schemes in place (Which I presume aren't around now I'm not claiming it's still relevant) which absolutely allowed us to play the Polish and Belarusian employees less than their local counterparts. That was the point. (and yes they did have a much better work ethic than the vast majority of the locals in my anecdotal experience)
  • Create New...