OBR: Immigration Vital for Growth

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...
I can't see the racism in anything I've said.

That's because there isn't any. Hamish can go on claiming people are Xenophobic etc and we can carry on ignoring him. It makes not one jot of difference.

Maintaining or increasing immigration if the economy stagnates will be political suicide. All the parties know this. If unemployment remains at 2.5m+ come the next election employment will be one of the biggest campaign issues .

i8change

According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs: "Immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative." and "forecasts that 20 years hence house prices would be over 10% higher, if current rates of net immigration persist, than if there were zero net immigration."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8211.htm#a33

Impacts on the labour market and macro-economy

212. GDP—which measures the total output created by immigrants and residents in the UK—is an irrelevant and misleading measure for the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population. The total size of an economy is not an indicator of prosperity or of residents' living standards (para 49)

213. GDP per capita is a better measure than GDP because it takes account of the fact that immigration increases not only GDP but also population. However, even GDP per capita is an imperfect criterion for measuring the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population because it includes the per capita income of immigrants (para 50).

214. Rather than referring to total GDP when discussing the economic impacts of immigration, the Government should focus on the per capita income (as a measure of the standard of living) of the resident population (para 51).

215. The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US. The Government should initiate research in this area, in view of the paucity of evidence for the UK (para 66).

Rising population density: Impacts on housing and wider welfare issues

235. Given the difficulties of meeting the demands for housing, the Government should assess the impact of immigration on Britain's housing provision (para 164).

236. Immigration is one of many factors contributing to more demand for housing and higher house prices. We note the forecasts that 20 years hence house prices would be over 10% higher, if current rates of net immigration persist, than if there were zero net immigration. Housing matters alone should not dictate immigration policy but they should be an important consideration when assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population in the UK (para 172).

237. Given the evidence that some immigrants have moved into properties suffering from a poor state of repair and/or overcrowding, the Government should assess whether its housing standards are being compromised and whether more inspections are necessary (para175).

238. The present and likely future scale of homelessness among A8 and non-EU immigrants should be thoroughly assessed as a first step to determining the implications of recent immigration for social housing provision (para 180)

239. In addition to its direct impact on the housing market, rising population density creates wider welfare issues and consequences for the living standards of UK residents. These wider welfare issues are potentially significant but in practice difficult to measure and, in part, highly subjective. They do, however, involve economic impacts on, for example, the cost and speed of implementation of public infrastructure projects. It is therefore important to include them in the debate about the economic impacts of immigration. Yet the Government appears not to have considered these issues at all. These wide-ranging impacts should be assessed urgently and the conclusions reflected in public policy as appropriate (para 185).

Most people already know what the reality is and care for their childrens future, thus:-

1. 81% of people agree that the Government should substantially reduce immigration levels to Britain.
2. 60% of Asians believe that there are too many immigrants in Britain.
3. 77% agree that you cannot criticise the amount of immigration, or individual immigrants, without being labelled a racist.
4. 85% agree that immigration is putting too much pressure on public services.
5. 45% of the Black respondents felt that there was too much immigration into Britain.
6. 76% of people agree that Britain is overcrowded.
7. 62% of people think that Britain will soon lose its unique identity if immigration continues as it is.
8. 76% think that there is, a fair amount (52%) or a great deal (24%), of tension between races and nationalities.

1. YouGov, November 2007
2. BBC Asian Network poll April 2005
3. Populus for the BBC March 2008
4. YouGov, November 2007
5. MORI, January 2007, cited in “Our Shared Future”, Commission on Integration and Cohesion, 14 June 2007, para. 2.42
6. YouGov, January 2007
7. ORB, November 2007
8. MORI Poll for BBC April 2008

There will always be treacherous types who have little care for the descendants of those who worked to make this country more civilised than the average to live in.



Shame on them.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A higher population means less national debt per citizen too....;)

Not neccesarily.

On the one hand, you are suggesting that we build and create for these people, which will have to be paid for through debt (we don't have the resources).

On the other hand, you are saying they will reduce debt. Have you deferred to becoming a labour spokesperson?

Given our welfare state, you may find that having even more people here, with the added cost of providing the infrastructure to cope with them, actually increases the debt.

Where is the money going to come from the provide the buildings for these nurses, doctors, police, new roads etc going to come from? More PFI debt?


Why are you so pro immigration Hamish? Tell us real reasons as to why it will benefit us?

omeuwen

A flexible labour market and migration make the economy more dynamic. People need to move from where there are no jobs to the places where they are in demand, nationally as well as internationally.

Turnbull2000

Mass immigration will continue unabated for a very long time. The Tories won't do anything other than talk of action.

Considering that house building will also remain desperately low for much of the decade, tough times are ahead for future house buyers and renters.

Graham_Devon

Isn't the truth Hamish, that you know if we import more people into the country, infrstructure will not keep up with the pace of immigration?

We all know your arguments on supply and demand.

We see you complaining that others get benefit handouts and you pay tax but don't get as much out as you pay in. We see you stating benefits should be cut. But when housing benefit looks to be capped, we see muliple arguments from you as to why it can't and won't be. Your interests in housing take over your interests in what you previously stated about cutting benefits.

When it comes to petrol prices increasing and severely effecting families, we get you turn around and state how good it is for you personally, and how good it is for your area and how pleased you are that prices are rising.

When it comes to public sector pensions, you want to see them cut, because you don't personally have access to them, and in this scenario, you appear to not only see the problem with debt the country is in, but you become a fundemental believer in having to reduce the debt by cutting public sector pensions.

Yet when it comes to debt and the economy, it's back to oh no no no, the only way to solve the debt crisis is to spend more (but excluding spending more on pensions, or benefits). So you only want to see spending in terms of lending more money to already indebted individuals as you believe this will bolster up asset prices.

When it comes to QE, you want cheques sent out to everyones doormats. But again, when it comes to people on benefits, you want them to lose money, and when it comes to public sector workers, you also want them to lose money.

I dunno....I'm thinking, just maybe....theres a vested interest in more people coming into the country, increasing the demand for property?

kabayiri

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Mass immigration will continue unabated for a very long time. The Tories won't do anything other than talk of action.
...

Highly likely, especially from other EU countries. It would be difficult to stop.

I reckon a fair proportion of new entrants will head to the wealthy SE too. Why shouldn't they ? The jobs are more plentiful there.

Turnbull2000

kabayiri wrote: »

Highly likely, especially from other EU countries. It would be difficult to stop.

I reckon a fair proportion of new entrants will head to the wealthy SE too. Why shouldn't they ? The jobs are more plentiful there.

Isn't Cameron in favour of Turkey joining the EU? Just imagine the scale if immigration and housing demand we can achieve with over 70 million Turks added to the free-movement pool!

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Isn't Cameron in favour of Turkey joining the EU? Just imagine the scale if immigration and housing demand we can achieve with over 70 million Turks added to the free-movement pool!

As I hinted.

This isn't about immigration being good.

This is all about hopeful devistation caused by the amount of people chasing so little goods. The problems and issues this would cause for so many families up and down the country is brushed to the side.

For the glee of house prices rising on the back of all these problems and misery is far too much for some to contain.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Earlier posts in this thread have pointed out that migrants are an economic net benefit to the UK, and that they actually have a positive impact on wages.

So I just don't see why people succumb to the ignorant anti-immigrant rhetoric peddled by the bigots. (And lets be clear, they are bigots, no matter how they like to dress it up)

Out of 30 posts to date, 8 of which are yours there is only yours that actually says they are a benefit, plus one other backing migrant movement for dynamic reasons..

I am not a bigot I just do the maths.

Most people on the minimum wage will soon pay little in the way of income tax or NI. They will pay consumption taxes to a limited extent. So if "Economic" migrants are largely filling these rolls then they are contributing limited amounts but will require a support infrastructure, including public sector costs and housing built around them.

At the same time the unemployed still need to be maintained and provided for in the same way and you cannot "coerce" them off benefits if there is nothing for them to take up, regardless of the economics of whether they practically can.

At least if we get our own unemployed back to work, even if in part and even if we still have to "top up" there provision, at least we are reducing the drain on the economy that will otherwise continue.

The supporting infrastructure does not have to grow to support a new workforce.

Don't dispute there are a hardcore of unemployable for all sorts of reasons, no doubt the economic movers will also bring their own in due course and dependents. We don't just get the singular worker.