Perception vs Reality

92203

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

An interesting series of quotes below.....

Taken at face value, you'd think these people were from an inner city ghetto, over-run by immigrants.


There is of course just one problem with these attitudes.

The interviewed parties were not living in Boston, or Luton, or some other area with high immigration.

They were living in Newark.

That is interesting? Are you referring to Newark on Trent in Nottinghamshire by any chance ? If so I spent four years living there and can make the following observations ;

• I lived in a Cul-De-Sac with 18 1 & 2 properties on it. One was owned by a pleasant Polish couple who we were friends with and were the same age as us at the time (early 20s). One house was a HMO with four different Polish men living in it, and one was rented by a young Polish couple with a baby. The rest were all English.
• One of the main employers (for largely unskilled workers) was the nearby Dixons Stores Group distribution warehouse and distribution centre. It was said that you needed to learn Polish to work there (confirmed by the Polish woman mentioned in my first bullet point).

I am originally from Lincoln, though have not lived there or spent much time there since moving away eight years ago. We are in the process of buying a house there so I've been back there quite a lot over the last few months. Since we've left, the demographic in some of the cheaper areas surrounding the city centre has changed noticeably. One of the local Roman Catholic churches now holds mass spoken in Polish every Sunday.

In the case of Polish immigration, I don't think that allowing scores of (often well educated and young) people prepared to work incredibly hard and for very little in menial jobs is helpful to the 2 million unemployed people in this country. I also think it's bad for Poland as a country to be haemorrhaging so many bright and motivated young people from their work force.

I have also spent some time living in Reading. Immigration there is a completely different kettle of fish, and there is a vast swathe of the town which is inhabited by people from further afield from Europe. Poverty and crime are rife in this area, and when walking through it it is almost like being in a different country.

I think that the impact of Eastern Europeans is quite modest in comparison to this.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

So this data is from over 10 years ago

The analysis is now 7 years old, but very comprehensive, and more recent studies both in the UK and around the World have found very similar results.

Broadly speaking, immigration increases wages for the native born, on average, and improves labour market outcomes for the native born over the long term.

It really is well established fact, supported by reams of evidence, and backed up by study after study.

That's not to say there are no negative effects for small percentages of the population, there are (although these are mostly temporary), but for society as a whole it's a net benefit.

and covers a period of relatively low immigration.

Hardly.

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The analysis is now 7 years old, but very comprehensive, and more recent studies both in the UK and around the World have found very similar results.

Broadly speaking, immigration increases wages for the native born, on average, and improves labour market outcomes for the native born over the long term.

It really is well established fact, supported by reams of evidence, and backed up by study after study.

That's not to say there are no negative effects for small percentages of the population, there are (although these are mostly temporary), but for society as a whole it's a net benefit.




Hardly.

What would the figures be for gross rather than net immigration?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

What would the figures be for gross rather than net immigration?

ukcarper

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.

I've looked at the report which is very theoretical and based on a period of growth and unless I'm mistaken full employment and even that shows that there is a negative effect of the bottom 20%.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

there is a negative effect of the bottom 20%.

So a neutral or positive effect on the other 80%.

And as we know it's positive at the median, it's clear a majority benefit.

As for it being in a period of growth, something like 90% of years are in growth, periods of recession are rare, and you can't plan an economy around 1 year in 10....

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So a neutral or positive effect on the other 80%.

And as we know it's positive at the median, it's clear a majority benefit.

As for it being in a period of growth, something like 90% of years are in growth, periods of recession are rare, and you can't plan an economy around 1 year in 10....

I don't dispute there are benefits to immigration but to suggest there are no negative effects is very one sided. The report is much to theoretical to be considered definitive.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't dispute there are benefits to immigration but to suggest there are no negative effects is very one sided..

I've never said there are no negative effects.

There are very clear negative effects, albeit for a small minority and they are mostly temporary in nature, but they are negative effects none the less.

The real question is should the majority who benefit from immigration somehow design the system better so that the minority who suffer from these temporary negative effects are better transitioned through them?

I happen to think there is a case for that, but it's also difficult to see it being implemented given the politics around these days.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've never said there are no negative effects.

There are very clear negative effects, albeit for a small minority and they are mostly temporary in nature, but they are negative effects none the less.

The real question is should the majority who benefit from immigration somehow design the system better so that the minority who suffer from these temporary negative effects are better transitioned through them?

I happen to think there is a case for that, but it's also difficult to see it being implemented given the politics around these days.

Although 20% is a minority it is a significant number of people and they are the people who can the least afford it. The people who benefit the most are the people earning the most whilst the effect on the majority is marginal and that is if the report is accurate which I'm not convinced it is.

TickersPlaysPop

I find the immigration debate very interesting and have wondered for yrs if it was to balance our demographic to maintain our capitalist economy growing, and pension money flowing, when birth rates were never going to do it alone. I don't have opinions on the topic, but have some facts....

2 points...

Are you all considering the report in Apr 2014 that admitted the figures are wrong for immigration?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/469860/EXPOSED-The-terrible-truth-of-mass-immigration-under-Labour

I heard on radio 4 that of all the countries in the world, the UK has one of the highest rates of indigenous people leaving.