4 ms·

It sounds like his point is that even if there are fewer big banks, he might be able to buy/rent an apartment in more desirable areas of the city. I interpret

by e1ven 8y ago

It sounds like his point is that even if there are fewer big banks, he might be able to buy/rent an apartment in more desirable areas of the city. I interpret his comment as pointing out a value to intangibles that are sometimes overlooked when viewing the country through a broad economic lens.

laumars 8y ago
The people who will be hurt the most would be those who are at the bottom of the proverbial food chain to begin with. Desirable areas will still be expensive because people on high income or positions of power will still hold those positions. It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise. Instead of levelling the playing field, I expect the brexit will just create an even bigger divide between the wealthy and the poor.
- growlist 8y ago
  > It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise. But doesn't mass immigration also hurt those at the bottom? It's not the well off that are facing competition for jobs, housing etc. is it?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny. Housing competition is fundamentally local - everyone in the world wants London property, regardless of living there. Nobody wants houses in Stoke on Trent.
    - growlist 8y ago
      > Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny. That's a pretty bold assertion, not what a quick google reflects
      - MagnumOpus 8y ago
        Care to share the results of your quick search please?
        growlist 8y ago
        The onus is on the person that makes the bold assertion to back it up, not on me to back up my challenge. But I'm getting used to the brigading now.
        laumars 8y ago
        I agree the former poster made a claim of evidence that should be backed up, but you did the same as well. Thus you’re both just as responsible to cite a source when asked.
        Loughla 8y ago
        It's not about who is responsible. If I had evidence to back my claim up, regardless of who made the initial assertion, I'm going to. My guess is that neither can find anything with a quick google search and are just hoping that this thread dies.
        growlist 8y ago
        Incorrect. If I thought earlier posters were intent on engaging sincerely I would continue, but evidence here and previously suggests they are employing derailing tactics masquerading as reasonable argument.
        Loughla 8y ago
        You're incorrect. Regardless of their reason, it does not derail an argument for you to provide sources. It bolsters your case. Refusing to provide citations makes it seem like you have something to hide, regardless of the others' intention.
        deleted 8y ago

by e1ven 8y ago

laumars 8y ago

The people who will be hurt the most would be those who are at the bottom of the proverbial food chain to begin with. Desirable areas will still be expensive because people on high income or positions of power will still hold those positions. It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise. Instead of levelling the playing field, I expect the brexit will just create an even bigger divide between the wealthy and the poor.

growlist 8y ago
> It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise. But doesn't mass immigration also hurt those at the bottom? It's not the well off that are facing competition for jobs, housing etc. is it?
- pjc50 8y ago
  Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny. Housing competition is fundamentally local - everyone in the world wants London property, regardless of living there. Nobody wants houses in Stoke on Trent.
  - growlist 8y ago
    > Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny. That's a pretty bold assertion, not what a quick google reflects
    - MagnumOpus 8y ago
      Care to share the results of your quick search please?
      - growlist 8y ago
        The onus is on the person that makes the bold assertion to back it up, not on me to back up my challenge. But I'm getting used to the brigading now.
        laumars 8y ago
        I agree the former poster made a claim of evidence that should be backed up, but you did the same as well. Thus you’re both just as responsible to cite a source when asked.
        Loughla 8y ago
        It's not about who is responsible. If I had evidence to back my claim up, regardless of who made the initial assertion, I'm going to. My guess is that neither can find anything with a quick google search and are just hoping that this thread dies.
        growlist 8y ago
        Incorrect. If I thought earlier posters were intent on engaging sincerely I would continue, but evidence here and previously suggests they are employing derailing tactics masquerading as reasonable argument.
        Loughla 8y ago
        You're incorrect. Regardless of their reason, it does not derail an argument for you to provide sources. It bolsters your case. Refusing to provide citations makes it seem like you have something to hide, regardless of the others' intention.
        deleted 8y ago