Immigration does not cause rising unemployment

vax2002

The next wave of migrant workers will be insourced call centre workers.
Indian call centre workers, fluent and trained in English are already arriving to do more jobs "lazy brits" dont want to do, which is basically the same job you have now on half the wages and twice the hours...

ILW

Hamish will probably disappear when he becomes a foreigner after independence.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Erm...., did you think that Hamish actually wrote the article?

That's why I asked if HE had anything to add. Clue is in the words "do you have anything to add".

He "told us so".... remember.

Simple, really.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

HOW does more immigration add to economic growth and help employment? I don't believe it does.

"Immigrants will increase both the overall population and the workforce.

As the population increases, it will increase the demand for goods and services.

This may feed through into demand for both capital and labour as companies seek to increase production.

As the workforce increases it could increase the returns to capital as there are more workers for each unit of capital.

It is therefore possible to argue that investment will increase in the face of an increase in the labour supply due to migration".

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do these reports take account of ANY of the extra costs, on say, the NHS? Benefits system and expenditure?.

"In 1999-2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and state services.

After rounding, this amounted to a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion.

Between 1999-2000 and 2003-04 it is estimated that revenue from migrants grew by 22 per cent in real terms as opposed to 6 per cent for the UK-born population.

In 1999-2000 the study estimates that migrants accounted for 8.8 per cent of government receipts and 8.4 per cent of government expenditure.

By 2003-04 it was estimated that migrants contributed 10 per cent of government receipts and accounted for 9.1 per cent of government expenditure. "

Graham_Devon

So it may feed through to some companies. Great.

Hamish, you are unable to demonstrate that immigration creates more jobs than the total number of immigrants. I've already stated what your quote suggests above, that more people to service = more people needed to service them. But that does not mean immigration creates more employment than the total number of immigrants.

The more immigrants you have, the more people chasing the small amount of jobs that immigration creates.

A pool of 200 immigrants to a local area may create enough local demand for a couple more jobs.... But thats 200 extra people to 2 jobs. (These are just purely off the top of my head figures as an example).

I think all your reports are suggesting is that more people = more job places. Thats great. It's also a given. If they count that as increased employment however, that's where the report is going wrong. It's an increased number of jobs.....not an increased percentage of people in employment, as you now have a bigger pool of people. Percentage employed vs number employed are two different things. Number employed can go up while percentage goes down....I don't need to teach you this, but feel you may be relying on the number and ignoring the percentage.

ILW

Would much of this depend on which groups of immigrants? Some seem to be much more successful than others.

Graham_Devon

And if this is all true.....why does Australia, which has such a succesful policy, not follow this and release the floodgates?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

heathcote123 wrote: »

So presumably if immigration was reversed, companies would just go belly up rather than employ local people?

No, companies would go belly up because the market was smaller, requiring less companies to service it.

It's not brain surgery is it? If you run a company that employs low skilled people, you're going to take immigrants as they will work for less, and probably turn up on time a bit more than the 'entitled' locals.

Low skilled people earn minimum wage.

It doesn't matter if you're an immigrant or native born, minimum wage is the same for both.

suggesting it's not displacing locals from low skilled manufacturing jobs etc just seems to fly in the face of common sense.

'Common sense' is rarely either....

manchesterred

wymondham wrote: »

Completely confused by this ....... seems to be two completely conflicting results...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084667/UK-unemployment-23-fewer-Britons-jobs-100-migrants.html

Don't believe everything you read or see on the T.V , the papers have an agenda, the Mail is broadly to the "Right" & the independent is most certainly to the "left" , it really depends on who you are talking too ..
I was watching Russia today last night , along with a bit of Al jazera, & of course the BBC & CBS news , & they ALL put a subtle spin on events to suit there governments agenda, both from the angle of the news, to the "Impartial" experts they interview, ..On a contentious news item for instance, you can have two or three points of view, & all are perfectly reasonable & plausible.. .. Propaganda has come a long way since the Nazi's used it too such great effect before & during ww2 ..

Procrastinator333

Immigrants are on average better employees than native workers. They work harder, longer and better. What do you think a multinational would do if the only workers available were work shy chavs?

A strong workforce is critical to a strong economy.