Perception vs Reality

System

Bantex wrote: »

Guess it would be the same for any industry sector. An oversupply of labour does tend to hit the lower paid hardest though. Probably why they tend to be drawn to UKIP.

Indeed....

Bantex_2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Indeed....

Which does pose the question as to whether it is right that the most disadvantaged workers should make the biggest sacrifices?

System

Bantex wrote: »

Which does pose the question as to whether it is right that the most disadvantaged workers should make the biggest sacrifices?

I don't really do "right and wrong". We've had all this for years on this forum about if it's "right" that house prices rise. My bag is the "What can I do to make the best of the situation?"

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Supply and demand does apply to labour as well as houses.

It's not quite that simple, as of course, immigration has actually increased the wages for the majority of workers in Britain.

For the bottom 10%, there has been a tiny decrease, of about 1p an hour on average.

However even for this small percentage at the bottom end of the wage scale, all the research points to better labour market outcomes for them over the long term.

But getting back to your comment, if supply and demand did apply to labour in the same way as houses, surely it would be just as bad an idea to have an artificial scarcity of labour as it is to have an artificial scarcity of houses....

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's not quite that simple, as of course, immigration has actually increased the wages for the majority of workers in Britain.

For the bottom 10%, there has been a tiny decrease, of about 1p an hour on average.

However even for this small percentage at the bottom end of the wage scale, all the research points to better labour market outcomes for them over the long term.

But getting back to your comment, if supply and demand did apply to labour in the same way as houses, surely it would be just as bad an idea to have an artificial scarcity of labour as it is to have an artificial scarcity of houses....

Depends on what position you are in, if you already own a few houses artificial scarcity is very good. If on the other hane you want to buy one it is bad. Just like if you are an employer that profits from a lot of cheap labour, great. If you happen to be that cheap labour, not so good.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Depends on what position you are in, if you already own a few houses artificial scarcity is very good. If on the other hane you want to buy one it is bad. Just like if you are an employer that profits from a lot of cheap labour, great. If you happen to be that cheap labour, not so good.

But as the majority of employees benefit from immigration driving up their wages, and those who are negatively affected are a tiny percentage, (and even then for most it's only temporarily) then for society as a whole the answer is clear.

Immigration has been and will continue to be a significant positive factor both for the wider economy and most individuals personal finances.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's not quite that simple, as of course, immigration has actually increased the wages for the majority of workers in Britain.

For the bottom 10%, there has been a tiny decrease, of about 1p an hour on average.

However even for this small percentage at the bottom end of the wage scale, all the research points to better labour market outcomes for them over the long term.

But getting back to your comment, if supply and demand did apply to labour in the same way as houses, surely it would be just as bad an idea to have an artificial scarcity of labour as it is to have an artificial scarcity of houses....

Where did you get those figures from.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Where did you get those figures from.

Same place he got them from before. Many arguments have been had over these figures....they are vague at the very best....but more a guess by vested interests whom benefit from immigration.

They have been rebuted time and time again. But they just keep getting pulled out as authorative figures nearly every time immigration is mentioned.

There is a pattern when it comes to these sort of figures. Often figures come out to suggest immigration increases jobs - however, the quality of those jobs in terms of pay, hours etc etc never comes into it. All that is ever mentioned is quantity and quality is almost an irrelevance.

The quality argument is very important though, as this is one of the major problems people have with immigration.....but we seem to be in a constant circle with people talking about quality as a downside to immigration and the pro immigration argument answering the issue with quantity. And around we go.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

Where did you get those figures from.

Dustman et al, 2007. Research commissioned by the Low Pay Commission into the wage impact of EU migration from 1997 to 2005.

They found that wage growth at the lowest end of the wage distribution was reduced by less than 0.7p per hour, while wages at the median grew by an extra 1.5p per hour, and at the 90th decile by an extra 2.3p per hour.

There is a load of data in this report, addressing both the positive and negative effects of immigration.

However on balance, the evidence is quite clear that immigration has been a net benefit to the UK.

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Dustman et al, 2007. Research commissioned by the Low Pay Commission into the wage impact of EU migration from 1997 to 2005.

They found that wage growth at the lowest end of the wage distribution was reduced by less than 0.7p per hour, while wages at the median grew by an extra 1.5p per hour, and at the 90th decile by an extra 2.3p per hour.

There is a load of data in this report, addressing both the positive and negative effects of immigration.

However on balance, the evidence is quite clear that immigration has been a net benefit to the UK.

So this data is from over 10 years ago and covers a period of relatively low immigration.