Perception vs Reality

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

This is the key part for me. It's not so much a case of this single study being accurate (and it's interesting to note that not a single poster criticising it has come up with anything specific) it's that the overwhelming mass of studies across times and across countries shows the same thing.

Whether you look at Toronto in the 1990s, C19th USA, C21st London or anywhere else the story remains the same: free immigration benefits the destination country immensely, even amongst the poor. If nothing else, a higher tax base means a greater welfare state can be paid for. After all, as Mrs Thatcher recognised it's not enough to have good intentions towards the poor, you have to have money to have a welfare state.

The problem is, if it is doing more to increase the difference between rich and poor it is not a good thing. The benefits to the average persons are marginal the losses to the poor are larger but the rich benefit the most. I'm sure the problems could be address but denying that it exist does nothing to further argument for immigration.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is, if it is doing more to increase the difference between rich and poor it is not a good thing. The benefits to the average persons are marginal the losses to the poor are larger but the rich benefit the most. I'm sure the problems could be address but denying that it exist does nothing to further argument for immigration.

I don't agree.

Generally, the rich do well regardless. The benefits to the poor of being able to buy things more cheaply, having a greater tax base to support their welfare benefits and having more employment opportunities are easily understated.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I don't agree.

Generally, the rich do well regardless. The benefits to the poor of being able to buy things more cheaply, having a greater tax base to support their welfare benefits and having more employment opportunities are easily understated.

You live in a country with strict border control.

Do you believe it would be better for Australia to open it's borders to approx 500m people?

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You live in a country with strict border control.

Do you believe it would be better for Australia to open it's borders to approx 500m people?

Australia has immigration levels about twice that of the UK. She also has trend GDP growth about 50% higher than the UK's and GDP per head 20% higher than the UK. Things seem just fine to me.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Australia has immigration levels about twice that of the UK.

Twice the rate of what? Percentage of population? Raw numbers of immigrants?

She also has trend GDP growth about 50% higher than the UK's and GDP per head 20% higher than the UK. Things seem just fine to me.

What does GDP matter in this discussion? Surely, based on what you are saying, you can get even higher GDP figures by opening the gates?

I just find it interesting that you are pro open gate immigration for the UK, but against it where you live in Australia.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I just find it interesting that you are pro open gate immigration for the UK, but against it where you live in Australia.

Where do I say that? You're making stuff up again Graham.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Where do I say that? You're making stuff up again Graham.

I'm not making anything up.

Clearly you haven't argued that the UK should reduce immigration and clearly you have argued immigration is good. So one would assume you are arguing that the UK should stick with it's current policies which is open door immigration to 500m inhabitants of the EU.

I don't want to go down this road where communications become bitter just because I have asked you about Australia or asked an awkward question. One would assume you are big enough to take this without resorting to vitirol.

You have stated several times that Austrialia has immigration twice the rate of the UK. I'm simply asking twice the rate of what?

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I don't agree.

Generally, the rich do well regardless. The benefits to the poor of being able to buy things more cheaply, having a greater tax base to support their welfare benefits and having more employment opportunities are easily understated.

Hamish quotes shows that better paid benefit more and the lower paid are worse off.


Perhaps being out of the country you are not seeing the problems the large number of immigrants arriving in a short time are causing. The distribution of immigrants is not uniform and large numbers are arriving in certain areas but the money to resource the large numbers is not being put into place. This causes problems in the local area which feed UKIP etc.

JSR

I don't think the kind of people available for comment in the market place on a work day represent anything like a true cross-section of opinion. Even so, the Independent really didn't find a single person with something to say which wasn't a regurgitation of UKIP propaganda? Not likely.

What's more it's odd that UKIPers talk about 'British jobs for British workers', which they allege British people can't get because they're not willing to work long enough or for so low wages. While at the same time implicitly supporting UKIP's policy to abolish things like the minimum wage, statutory holidays (and other limits on working time), maternity/paternity leave and other employee guarantees emanating from both British and European law.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not making anything up.

Clearly you haven't argued that the UK should reduce immigration and clearly you have argued immigration is good. So one would assume you are arguing that the UK should stick with it's current policies which is open door immigration to 500m inhabitants of the EU.

I don't want to go down this road where communications become bitter just because I have asked you about Australia or asked an awkward question. One would assume you are big enough to take this without resorting to vitirol.

You have stated several times that Austrialia has immigration twice the rate of the UK. I'm simply asking twice the rate of what?

Net migration per 1,000 of population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

UK = 2.59
Aus = 5.93

That's well over double and mean that in absolute terms Aus takes almost as many migrants net as the UK.