Labour's U-turn on immigration.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There have been three major studies looking at the aspects of the economic and labour market impact of the migrants from the new Member States:

-One by me, with Sara Lemos at the University of Leicester, found no impacts on native unemployment, either overall, or specifically for the young or low-skilled. Nor did we find any significant impact on wages, although the data is less conclusive.

-One by researchers at UCL, which found that the new migrants made a substantial and disproportionately positive contribution to the public finances, because “they have a higher labour force participation rate, pay proportionately more in indirect taxes, and make much lower use of benefits and public services”.

-One by my colleagues at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found relatively small, but positive, macroeconomic impacts.

This chart shows the correlation between wage growth at the 10th percentile (ie very low paid workers) and the proportion of migrants from the new Member States, at local authority level.



It is clear that there isn’t one; ie wage growth for the low paid and immigrant inflows don’t appear to be related at all. Numerous other ways of looking at the data tell the same story.

In addition, of course, there have been many other studies of the impact of immigration more generally, which tells pretty much the same story.

As Jonathan Wadsworth, of Royal Holloway College and the government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee, summarises:

“It is hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages, on average.”

So; the new migrants get jobs, contribute to the economy, pay taxes, don’t use many public services, and don’t take jobs from natives.

What, exactly, is the problem?

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-ed-miliband-shouldnt-apologise-for.html

When a migrant arrives in a country (s)he adds to both the supply of and demand for labour. Immigrants get a job, work and then buy stuff.

The fallacy that migrants take 'our jobs' is to fall for the idea that an economy is a 'zero sum game', that is to say that there is a finite pie that gets split between however many people are in the country. It's not so: migrants bring and acquire skills that they turn into additional output.

Also don't forget that there are three times at which people tend to consume considerably more than they pay to the state: as children, as women of child bearing age and as old people. Most migrants are adults so they do not need educating at vast expense.

faerie~spangles

{Room to let:

No I;;;;

No b...........................................................}

In days of old

Yet the good ol' uk'ers want to be given respect abroad.

Generali

faerie~spangles wrote: »

{Room to let:

No I;;;;

No b...........................................................}

In days of old

Yet the good ol' uk'ers want to be given respect abroad.

Or as the Tories put it in their darkest hour:

If you want a n.....r for a neighbour vote Labour.

faerie~spangles

Generali wrote: »

Or as the Tories put it in their darkest hour:

If you want a nor'n islander for a neighbour vote Labour.

Ever noticed how up their own erse expat returnees are?.

Generali

faerie~spangles wrote: »

Ever noticed how up their own erse expat returnees are?.

Erm............?

What's you point please?

CLAPTON

There was an interesting interview on TV (BBC I think) with a Polish baker.
He had been running a bakery for 40 years in the UK and his work force was exclusively European;
he gave the reason as whenever he advertised for an experienced continential baker he go no replies from Uk nationals

No-one asked why he couldn't possibly train some-one up. (I'm assuming baking isn't rocket science)

If we take the view it's always better (cheaper) to recruit an experienced foreigner rather than train an unemployed UK youth, then our sub class will be there for ever.

Sampong

Generali wrote: »

When a migrant arrives in a country (s)he adds to both the supply of and demand for labour. Immigrants get a job, work and then buy stuff.

Not really - many are saving the money for when they return home. Many are sending the money home as they can earn 4x here what they can earn at home. An immigrant arriving in the country certainly adds to the supply, but not the demand for labour since we have a large amount of British unemployed. I would have thought that point was obvious. Miliband clearly thinks it is a big enough issue to address.

The fallacy that migrants take 'our jobs' is to fall for the idea that an economy is a 'zero sum game', that is to say that there is a finite pie that gets split between however many people are in the country. It's not so: migrants bring and acquire skills that they turn into additional output.

True if immigration is controlled and sensible, but we have massive uncontrolled immigration brought about by EU freedom of movement. A large percentage are coming here for factory and landwork - hardly aquiring new skills, and not really generating additional output. What it does do is provide employers with the opportunity to drive down wages. Factories, farmers and supermarkets benefit from increased profits, but that money is less likely to be moving around in the economy and more likely to be with Jimmy Carr's accountant in a tax haven somewhere. Meanwhile Joe Public has less money, subsequently spends less money and town centres are dying, which results in more shop closures and more unemployed. Not sure if yo uhave noticed this happening but perhaps if some people pulled their heads out of research papers and opened their eyes to have a look at what was going on around them they would notice more.

Also don't forget that there are three times at which people tend to consume considerably more than they pay to the state: as children, as women of child bearing age and as old people. Most migrants are adults so they do not need educating at vast expense.

Migrants bring Children with them and have more babies when here. Schools are beyond their capacity in many places. NHS is feeling the strain. So are other public services. Courts and Police pay millions per year in interpereters to deal with the increasing amount of crime committed by migrants - paid for by - you guessed it - the taxpayer.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

Or as the Tories put it in their darkest hour:

If you want a n.....r for a neighbour vote Labour.

That's unjust, General. One Tory candidate said it in one election. It's not fair (whatever one thinks of the Conservative party) to imply it was party policy. Labour wasn't exactly running around playing 'rainbow nation'; at the time, either.

If you want to start mining for 'stupid things said by party candidates' you would have a long series of books ahead of you.

Generali

A._Badger wrote: »

That's unjust, General. One Tory candidate said it in one election. It's not fair (whatever one thinks of the Conservative party) to imply it was party policy. Labour wasn't exactly running around playing 'rainbow nation'; at the time, either.

If you want to start mining for 'stupid things said by party candidates' you would have a long series of books ahead of you.

Don't get me wrong. On balance I'd rather see a Tory Government than a Labour one in the UK.

However that was particularly crappy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

However that was particularly crappy.

Indeed it was.

It's quite interesting though, as a related thought, that the far right and far left are pretty much equally protectionist and equally racist/xenophobic these days although presumably with slightly different ideological justifications...

I do wonder about the cause/effect of these things, and whether it's racists that are drawn to such ideology or whether it's the ideology that creates the racist.