Immigrants & Benefits

MacMickster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, thats not right.

We have the highest average wages in Scotland, yet nowhere near the highest prices and rents.

You can buy a 2 bed place for 135K, or a 1 bed for 75K, in decent enough areas. You can also spend many times that if you're loaded... Or a lot less if you're poor and willing to compromise on area or commute in.

Surely the high paid jobs are skilled jobs, rather than the unskilled jobs sought ny the vegetable pickers who decend upon places like Boston.

Out of a population of 220K, Aberdeen has only 4K migrant workers. This is significantly below the UK average. With high wages and apparently good prospects, why do you think that is the case?

Almost nobody disputes that the right immigrants are good for the UK. These immigrants who are both skilled and motivated are what you experience in the isolation of Aberdeen. You don't see, on a daily basis, the type of immigrants that the majority (who are not racists or xenophobes) get to see more frequently.

Controlled immigration is essential for a thriving UK. Uncontrolled immigration on the other hand is a disaster.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Did you want to challenge the assertions in this report?

There is no link between rising immigration and rising unemployment, independent economists have found – contradicting persistent claims from anti-immigration activists and politicians that an influx of foreign nationals into the UK in recent years has led to more British-born workers on the dole.

The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that there was "no association" between higher immigration and joblessness – even at times of recession or low growth of the sort that Britain is experiencing at the moment.

In fact, the Institute's researchers suggested that the opposite might be the case and that immigration acts as an economic stimulus, pushing total employment levels higher and dole claimant numbers lower than they would otherwise have been.

"Perhaps surprisingly," their economists said, "the interaction between migrant inflows and GDP emerges as positive, indicating that during periods of lower growth, migrant inflows are associated with ... slower [dole] claimant growth than would otherwise have occurred."

per capita GDP is a more important figure the the vast majority of people as it indicates their standard of living. The report you quote makes no mention of it.

doughnutmachine

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Did you want to challenge the assertions in this report?

There is no link between rising immigration and rising unemployment, independent economists have found – contradicting persistent claims from anti-immigration activists and politicians that an influx of foreign nationals into the UK in recent years has led to more British-born workers on the dole.

The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that there was "no association" between higher immigration and joblessness – even at times of recession or low growth of the sort that Britain is experiencing at the moment.

In fact, the Institute's researchers suggested that the opposite might be the case and that immigration acts as an economic stimulus, pushing total employment levels higher and dole claimant numbers lower than they would otherwise have been.

"Perhaps surprisingly," their economists said, "the interaction between migrant inflows and GDP emerges as positive, indicating that during periods of lower growth, migrant inflows are associated with ... slower [dole] claimant growth than would otherwise have occurred."

i read somewhere that the benefits of immigration were 50 pence a week per indigenous person... i'd rather be 50 pence a week poorer and not feel like a foreigner in my own country.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And another one....

George Osborne's economic strategy rests on continued high levels of immigration to Britain – in contrast to the Conservatives' policy of cutting net migration down to the "tens of thousands".

The Government will find itself in the position of either having to allow continued immigration in the hundreds of thousands or jeopardising the country's economic recovery, according to its own fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Ministers will not reduce average annual immigration down to the "tens of thousands" over the course of this parliament according to the OBR's projections. Instead, net inward migration to Britain will remain at an average of 140,000 a year until 2016, it says, despite repeated promises from Conservative ministers that they will reduce immigration flows to substantially below these levels.

If ministers were to succeed in reducing immigration down to their target, the UK's growth would be damaged, the OBR's economists believe – acknowledging the role that immigration plays in Britain's economic health. The forecast is embarrassing for David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, who have repeatedly insisted that the Tory manifesto pledge will be met.

The OBR said: "Our assumption for population growth is based on average net inward migration of 140,000 per annum over the forecast period [2011-16]." Net migration to the UK in 2010 was 252,000, according to the Office for National Statistics, the highest level on record.

Tory ministers have consistently stressed that their objective is to bring down net migration to Britain to "tens of thousands" a year before the end of this parliament. Mr Cameron reiterated this objective in October.

The Home Office argues that, since the OBR's 140,000-a-year net migration figure is an average over five years it is consistent with immigration levels dipping below 100,000 in future years of this parliament. But the average flows over the parliament would still be considerably in excess of ministers' targets. And the OBR's estimate – which it first made in June 2010 – has not changed despite the immigration control measures introduced by the Coalition over the past 18 months.

The OBR has also pointed out that falls in immigration would have economic implications. Reductions in net immigration would have a negative impact on UK growth, the fiscal watchdog said in November last year. "If migrants have a similar employment rate and level of productivity to the existing average, a reduction or increase in population growth of 0.1 per cent would translate one-for-one to a reduction or increase in trend growth of 0.1 per cent respectively."

Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the OBR would have to revise down its growth and deficit forecasts if the watchdog believed the Government was likely to succeed in cutting immigration. "Less immigration would mean fewer workers paying tax," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wanted-more-immigrants-to-boost-british-economy-6271541.html

ILW

Hamish
Why will you not address the question as to whether it would not be best for the UK to pick which immigrants are of the most use to the country, and reject which are likely to be of little benefit?

Sampong

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i read somewhere that the benefits of immigration were 50 pence a week per indigenous person... i'd rather be 50 pence a week poorer and not feel like a foreigner in my own country.

I remember it to be less than that - and that is assuming the analysis is correct which is highly unlikely.

doughnutmachine

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And another one....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wanted-more-immigrants-to-boost-british-economy-6271541.html

so the main argument for immigration is that big business will get cheap labour and make more profit?

we surely should cherry pick the immigrants we get? ie not accept ones that don't have a degree or speak english?

then is it morally right to employ skilled people from the developing world? or has the developing world got enough doctors and nurses etc?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MacMickster wrote: »

Surely the high paid jobs are skilled jobs, rather than the unskilled jobs .

We pay our cleaners £10 an hour and still can't get enough of them.

How much more do you want us to pay for an unskilled job?

Or is your typical lefty answer going to be.... "whatever it takes to create an inflationary spiral?"

doughnutmachine

Sampong wrote: »

I remember it to be less than that - and that is assuming the analysis is correct which is highly unlikely.

yeah, i saw a fly on the wall documentary about a school in edinburgh. it had a romanian kid in the school, he required a special teacher as he never spoke english. his family were claiming benefits and had a council house. i can't see how he was benefiting the UK economy.

i suppose it gave a romanian translator a job though.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

Hamish
Why will you not address the question as to whether it would not be best for the UK to pick which immigrants are of the most use to the country, and reject which are likely to be of little benefit?

As there is "no link between rising immigration and rising unemployment", what does it matter?

We are all European citizens, and all have the right to live and work anywhere in Europe.

Its working well, so why mess with a good thing?