We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
GDP per capita and immigration
Comments
-
There are winners and losers though. If you happen to be one of the latter your opinion may be influenced by it.
Well this is, to a small extent, actually true.
There is a well documented effect for a very small percentage of people. Where immigrants occasionally displace them as the stagnant/settled labour force in low-skilled sectors or in very small areas.
It is almost always temporary in nature, and doesn't change the fact that immigration is good for the vast majority right away, and is ultimately even good for most of those who are temporarily affected....
As in the long term, it forces them to acquire new skills and pursue new career paths resulting in better employment outcomes as they move up the wage and skills ladder into more complex jobs.
One of the better documented examples is the following study from Denmark that looked at both EU and non-EU immigration.....
http://web.econ.ku.dk/eprn_epru/Workings_Papers/EPRU.Projekt%2064.w19315.pdfOverall immigration seems to increase the churning of jobs and generate a tendency of moving towards more complex jobs, a higher tendency to moving out of the establishment and out of the
municipality and out of the manufacturing sector into more complex and differentiated industries.
Most of these changes are associated to upgrades and better opportunity, rather than to displacement and loss of skills, as they may generate increases in wages and yearly income. The probability of being employed or unemployed was not affected.
Interestingly, this study also demonstrated there was no meaningful difference in the average 'cumulative time of unemployment' of the native workers over a long period (10 years plus).“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
gdp is a very imperfect measure of value as every single economic text book tells us.
It is. For example, if everyone takes in each others' laundry for money rather than doing their own, that would add to GDP without increasing output.a 1 hour traffic jam adds to GDP (all the extra fuel consumed) but many wouldn't say we were actually richer for it.
Not usually. The extra money spent on fuel is likely to be at the expense of spending on other things. While I'm sitting in a traffic jam I am neither consuming (except for small amounts of petrol and perhaps listening to the radio) nor making stuff to be consumed.a long delay seeing a doctor is neutral GDP wise and many would disagree in terms of quality of life (or even life itself).
In that case, an immigrant doctor would be just the ticket. Perhaps an immigrant road builder to reduce traffic jams or immigrant coffee makers to reduce the queue in Costa StarNero would help too.0 -
Or for those less inclined to read hundreds of eye-glazingly boring economic papers, there was a surprisingly honest and candid story in the usually right-wing Daily Mail recently, noting that immigration has saved Southampton from years of decline.....
Some quotes.....‘There are some stresses and strains on the system, but there is also an upside in the number of new businesses being created that are paying business rates, and the contribution that people make to city life.’
and......‘The idea that they are taking jobs from local people is not true either. I had a big employer come to me in desperation because he needed 40 people for his work force and not one person had replied to his advert in the Job Centre.
‘Within two days of alerting the local community, he had 80 applications from Polish workers. They don’t undercut anyone else’s wages and they are paying their taxes.
‘When they first arrive, Polish people are prepared to take most jobs because they understand that they have to prove themselves.’
Polish invasion that's SAVED my home town:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well this is, to a small extent, actually true.
There is a well documented effect for a very small percentage of people. Where immigrants occasionally displace them as the stagnant/settled labour force in low-skilled sectors or in very small areas.
It is almost always temporary in nature, and doesn't change the fact that immigration is good for the vast majority right away, and is ultimately even good for most of those who are temporarily affected....
As in the long term, it forces them to acquire new skills and pursue new career paths resulting in better employment outcomes as they move up the wage and skills ladder into more complex jobs.
One of the better documented examples is the following study from Denmark that looked at both EU and non-EU immigration.....
http://web.econ.ku.dk/eprn_epru/Workings_Papers/EPRU.Projekt%2064.w19315.pdf
Interestingly, this study also demonstrated there was no meaningful difference in the average 'cumulative time of unemployment' of the native workers over a long period (10 years plus).
if all immigration, irrespective of the quality of the immigrant, increases per capita GDP then why can't we all be richer by everyone moving country?
if population alone is a measure of per capita GDP then why don't all large countries have higher per capita GDP than small countries.
do the counties with large emigration become per capita poorer ?
it is such an easy solution to making the entire world rich that I'm amazed it isn't more widely debated.
or maybe the chosen measure doesn't affect how rich we really are?0 -
Telling a 50 year old plumber that his choice is to retrain or drop his rates is not really much of a choice.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well this is, to a small extent, actually true.
There is a well documented effect for a very small percentage of people. Where immigrants occasionally displace them as the stagnant/settled labour force in low-skilled sectors or in very small areas.
It is almost always temporary in nature, and doesn't change the fact that immigration is good for the vast majority right away, and is ultimately even good for most of those who are temporarily affected....
As in the long term, it forces them to acquire new skills and pursue new career paths resulting in better employment outcomes as they move up the wage and skills ladder into more complex jobs.
One of the better documented examples is the following study from Denmark that looked at both EU and non-EU immigration.....
http://web.econ.ku.dk/eprn_epru/Workings_Papers/EPRU.Projekt%2064.w19315.pdf
Interestingly, this study also demonstrated there was no meaningful difference in the average 'cumulative time of unemployment' of the native workers over a long period (10 years plus).0 -
if all immigration, irrespective of the quality of the immigrant, increases per capita GDP then why can't we all be richer by everyone moving country?
if population alone is a measure of per capita GDP then why don't all large countries have higher per capita GDP than small countries.
do the counties with large emigration become per capita poorer ?
it is such an easy solution to making the entire world rich that I'm amazed it isn't more widely debated.
or maybe the chosen measure doesn't affect how rich we really are?
Because motivated people tend to move from countries with low wages to those with higher ones.
Wages generally reflect the output of workers. The reality is that a person moving from Poland to the UK, for example, will be able to make more profit for his boss/hour and will be able to charge more for his labour as a result.
It's just another example of the market distributing resources more efficiently. I don't light my house by burning olive oil in burners as electric lights do the same job better and cheaper. In the same way, higher wages in the UK than Poland reflect greater demand for workers.0 -
Telling a 50 year old plumber that his choice is to retrain or drop his rates is not really much of a choice.
Having a 50 year old plumber charging exorbitantly high rates due to an artificial scarcity of labour is not a great choice for wider society.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It is. For example, if everyone takes in each others' laundry for money rather than doing their own, that would add to GDP without increasing output.
Not usually. The extra money spent on fuel is likely to be at the expense of spending on other things. While I'm sitting in a traffic jam I am neither consuming (except for small amounts of petrol and perhaps listening to the radio) nor making stuff to be consumed.
In that case, an immigrant doctor would be just the ticket. Perhaps an immigrant road builder to reduce traffic jams or immigrant coffee makers to reduce the queue in Costa StarNero would help too.
yes indeed: GDP is not a good measure of our quality of life; in fact often gives us a false picture.
an immigrant doctor may or may not be just the ticket but that has little to do with the general (real) economics of large scale immigration. and whether it give us a better quality of life or not.0 -
the general (real) economics of large scale immigration. and whether it give us a better quality of life or not.
You're conflating financial impacts of immigration, which are overwhelmingly positive for both the country and most individuals, with a much less measurable thing called 'quality of life'.
Obviously, if you hate hearing the sound of foreign languages being spoken on your high street, hate the idea of new infrastructure and houses being built 'in my back yard' and and think nothing should ever change ever at all from some myopic picture of life in the 1950's..... Then immigration will not improve your 'quality of life'.
But there's a reason most UKIP supporters are older ill-educated white males, and the above has a lot to do with it..... :cool:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Because motivated people tend to move from countries with low wages to those with higher ones.
Wages generally reflect the output of workers. The reality is that a person moving from Poland to the UK, for example, will be able to make more profit for his boss/hour and will be able to charge more for his labour as a result.
It's just another example of the market distributing resources more efficiently. I don't light my house by burning olive oil in burners as electric lights do the same job better and cheaper. In the same way, higher wages in the UK than Poland reflect greater demand for workers.It is. For example, if everyone takes in each others' laundry for money rather than doing their own, that would add to GDP without increasing output.
is this a good example of the market distributing resources more efficiently?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards