GDP per capita and immigration

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

the 'studies ' don't even tend to mention such things as increased congestion, house prices etc

The solution to a shortage of housing is to build more houses.

The solution to ageing and outdated infrastructure is to build newer and more capable infrastructure.

Not to penalise the population at large by reducing financial and economic growth for the state and individuals through restricting immigration.

The UK spends less on infrastructure than any of it's major competitors, and this problem has been going on for decades. It is frankly absurd that we take decades to build a new motorway, railway line or another runway.... When other countries can do it in months or a few short years.

Or as KPMG put it.....

Richard Threlfall, KPMG's head of infrastructure, told the Today programme that the government's "announcements are going to be very welcome, but they do reflect the fact that this government is playing catch-up for more than 30 years of under investment in the UK's infrastructure.

"The UK has invested less in its infrastructure than any one of its major competitors, typically less than 1% of its GDP."
.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

In this case it means people living in a country already. I didn't realise that was an unusual way to use the word indigenous. Sorry about that.

my question was

Originally Posted by CLAPTON View Post
by 'most' people do you include the people from the country of emigration?

your answer was

Yes. Most indigenous people gain though IMHO

maybe you misread me

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

Presumably an immigrant wanting to run a competing business would also face the same costs.

As for 'targeted immigration', that sounds an awful lot to me like the Government setting prices to me. That has never worked terribly well.

Out of interest.
What is the general view of the ethnic Australian population on immigration. Do they genarally see it as a good or bad thing?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The solution to a shortage of housing is to build more houses.

The solution to ageing and outdated infrastructure is to build newer and more capable infrastructure.

Not to penalise the population at large by reducing financial and economic growth for the state and individuals through restricting immigration.

The UK spends less on infrastructure than any of it's major competitors, and this problem has been going on for decades. It is frankly absurd that we take decades to build a new motorway, railway line or another runway.... When other countries can do it in months or a few short years.

Or as KPMG put it.....

I would agree the answer to a housing problem is to build more house

I would also agree the answer to poor infrastructure is to improve it.

I see no connection between such things (or how to improve the general quality of life) and increased immigration.

I don't equate minor variations in the measurement of 'GDP' with real quality of life.

leveller2911

Generali wrote: »

Presumably an immigrant wanting to run a competing business would also face the same costs.

I agree totally Gen but the problem that we have seen in the Construction industry in particular is low skilled migrant labour living 5-10 to a house and all paying a small percentage of the bills whereas a UK worker will typically have 100% of the rent,Council tax,utilities etc to pay so the playing field was/is not level. That UK worker was paying into the system but as wages fell due to increased competition from abroad his income will be subsidised by in work benefits. In this industry it has been a race to the bottom.

Anyone coming here who went self employed from day 1 as long as they could prove they worked here for 8 weeks (invoices etc) were then eligable for all benefits including Housing benefits,working tax credits,child benefit (paid as UK rate for each child even if they remained in their country or origin.) free NHS treatment etc and all this when their income may well have been less than the yearly tax allowance but Hamish won't admit this because it doesn't fit nicely into his agenda.Hamish thinks that all immigarnts are university educated who come here and are happy to pick carrots in Lincolnshire for a few months until they all set up their own businesses and employ the workshy lazy Brit.

Its easy for the chattering classes and the likes of Hamish to post his view that all immigration is good but Hamish won't be affected by immigration personally.

I have nothing but respect for someone who comes to the UK and sets up a successful business and I welcome them the ones who do and I say that as someone who set up and run my own successful business.

But Hamish seems to think that all immigrants come here to set up their own businesses,employ others and contribute to the economy but many low skilled immigrants do neither.

As for 'targeted immigration', that sounds an awful lot to me like the Government setting prices to me. That has never worked terribly well.

Other countries have a points based system which seems to work fine and I'm sure rules can be put in place so as to stop any future Governments from manipulating the system.

In reality don't we already have "price setting" in everyday life?. Supermarkets telling farmers how much they will pay for produce?.The EU CAP is price manipulation, paying subsidies growing crops one year and the next year enviromental projects which limits the supply of crops. The EU fisheries policy is a form or price setting when they tell fishermen how many days they can go to sea and how much of each species they can catch so we see it currently in our daily lives.

leveller2911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The solution to a shortage of housing is to build more houses.

The solution to ageing and outdated infrastructure is to build newer and more capable infrastructure.

Not to penalise the population at large by reducing financial and economic growth for the state and individuals through restricting immigration.

You are partly correct Hamish but anyone with an ounce of common sense would have addressed the housing shortage and the outdated infrastructure before the accession countries joined the EU back in 2004. The future problems were there for all to see but the political elite knew best.

No good trying to now stick a plaster over a gaping wound which won't heal without major surgery. The fact is there is neither the political will nor finances to solve the problem. I can see most of HS2 being scrapped but will they spend the money on more pressing infrastruture?. I won't hold my breath.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

my question was




your answer was



maybe you misread me

No I did not misread you, I wrote 2 sentences. Perhaps 2 paragraphs would have been clearer.

The answer to your initial question was "Yes" or, to expand, "Yes, I include immigrants in the majority of people who benefit from migration".

I then added a second sentence to clarify my comments which is to say that the majority of indigenous (i.e. non-migrants) also benefit from migration.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

No I did not misread you, I wrote 2 sentences. Perhaps 2 paragraphs would have been clearer.

The answer to your initial question was "Yes" or, to expand, "Yes, I include immigrants in the majority of people who benefit from migration".

I then added a second sentence to clarify my comments which is to say that the majority of indigenous (i.e. non-migrants) also benefit from migration.

language clearly divides us

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

Out of interest.
What is the general view of the ethnic Australian population on immigration. Do they genarally see it as a good or bad thing?

Do you mean Aboriginal Australians? They were migrants so are probably broadly in favour with caveats against later arrivals.

the_flying_pig

back to the OP, i very much doubt that an open door immigration policy [e.g. not a selective one like the one australia tried or whatever] will lead to any noticable increase in GDP per capita.

for the UK my sense is that the impact on GDP per capita of fairly recent immigrants is negligible tho i'm not aware that anyone's convincingly shown its impact one way or another.

my instinct might be to take a wild stab in the dark & guess it's marginally positive, mostly on the grounds of the age profile of immigrants, but marginally negative if you were to try & strip this out, the consequence of unemployment rates being consistently higher for 'minorities'.