Perception vs Reality

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Australians are better protected from the harmful effects by restricting entry from those that would be directly competing for the same jobs. I really cannot see why that is a bad thing. What is the current unemployment rate in Oz?

You keep coming back to the myth that immigration causes unemployment of the native born population, otherwise known as the 'Lump of Labour Fallacy'.

As it doesn't, on average, then there's little point in answering your question as it's based on a false premise.

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You keep coming back to the myth that immigration causes unemployment of the native born population, otherwise known as the 'Lump of Labour Fallacy'.

As it doesn't, on average, then there's little point in answering your question as it's based on a false premise.

If I could link you to some data that shows that immigration does cause some unemployment among native born population, would you change your mind?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yet Australia ends up with a system where immigration is over twice as high per capita than the UK, but administered at a much higher cost and complexity.

No, net migration is higher.

That's not to say immigration is higher. I don't know I haven't got he figures.

I just don't really understand how someone should suggest the UK should have an open border policy, but suggest Austrialia shouldn't.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hang on.

My sources show that all those above the 20th percentile of income are neutral or better off, based purely on wages.

Generali is right when he says a bigger and more thriving economy (which immigration brings) is also better able to pay for the other services and benefits that the lowest paid require.




This entire thread was about the frankly delusional quotes of UKIP supporters living in an area that has only had tiny levels of immigration, and where around 95% of residents are 'White British'.

The "problems the large number of immigrants arriving in a short time are causing" are largely made up.

It is in most cases a complete and utter fabrication to claim immigrants are causing any significant problems, and in the very few parts of the country where it might have a small element of truth, you tend to find the reporting on any such problem is hugely exaggerated with local flames being fanned by Vested Interests such as the BNP or UKIP.

I live in an area that has experienced large scale immigration and I can assure you it is causing problems it could easily be solved if the government funding the extra services required but that is not happening.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, net migration is higher.

That's not to say immigration is higher. I don't know I haven't got he figures.

I just don't really understand how someone should suggest the UK should have an open border policy, but suggest Austrialia shouldn't.

If you haven't understood by now after it's been explained to you, it's probably best you leave it...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

If I could link you to some data that shows that immigration does cause some unemployment among native born population, would you change your mind?

I've never said it doesn't cause some unemployment amongst some small sections of the native born population. Otherwise known as the displacement effect.

But this is temporary in nature, and most of those displaced ultimately end up with better labour market outcomes overall.

It doesn't cause the overall unemployment rate to increase though, and as previously noted, immigration does not increase unemployment in society as a whole.

Just the opposite in fact, it tends to lead to stronger more dynamic economies with lower unemployment over the long term.

Bantex_2

Maybe I could pu this another way,
Immigration is a good thing for a country.
Selective immigration of just the brightest, best and who will profit the country the most, is even better.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Maybe I could put this another way,

OK...

Immigration is a good thing for a country.

Yes it is.

Selective immigration of just the brightest, best and who will profit the country the most, is even better.

Very arguable.

The beauty of the current system of EU membership creating an open and free market in labour, is that it is effectively immune to meddling by politicians swayed by fickle public opinion, or general bureaucratic incompetence.

The dreaded skills shortages of the past, which ramped up prices and decreased service levels for consumers, and acted as an economic drag on societal progress, have all but vanished.

Businesses are free to recruit staff according to need from a pool of labour large enough to give them a good chance of consistently finding good candidate quality, which makes our companies more competitive both at home and abroad, and employees are free to live and work anywhere in Europe that they choose to do. And millions of Brits choose to do just that.

When you look at the increased costs to businesses and ultimately consumers that would apply in having to apply for a work visa for a french chef, or a work visa for a swedish au-pair, or a work visa for a polish plumber, it is likely the cost/benefit ratio would quickly swing into the negative and result in a return to the bad old days of less competitive businesses, higher consumer costs, and a broken labour market.

And above all else, what we really need to do is swing the demographics and age profiles of the country back into balance, to restore the natural order of having more young people than old people, and what this requires above all else is an influx of young, breeding age, immigrants.

Given that a shortage of working/breeding age people will be the next great global resource shortage, the sooner we do that before we have to aggressively complete with other countries for them, the better.

And selective immigration can never tell you whose kids will grow up to be the next Alan Sugar, or Bill Gates, or Johnny Ives, or Richard Branson. But the bigger the pool of people we have to draw from, the more chance we have of getting them.

So in short, mass immigration is good. Selective immigration has costs. The current system works well. Why change it?

ukcarper

How does that help if the majority of immigrants are unskilled.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

How does that help if the majority of immigrants are unskilled.

Well first of all it's extremely doubtful that the majority of immigrants are unskilled. Low skilled, or vocationally skilled, perhaps, but not unskilled.

And second, we do need unskilled/low skilled migrants in the UK.

Our shortage is of people, and we need to import migrants in broadly the same percentages of skill levels as the current population. That means we need some skilled labour, some professionals, some specialists, and some unskilled or low skilled.

Now you could make an argument that the million or so low/unskilled and long-term unemployed people currently here should be forced to move to where the work is and take on the jobs instead.

But the problem with that is we have shown no desire as a country to force them to move to where the work is. Whereas immigrants happily do so.

In my neck of the woods there are 3 jobs for every jobseeker currently, but I hardly ever see anyone bothering to get off their backside and come here from the North of England looking for work.

I do see people willing to leave everything behind and come from Poland, or Ireland, or Spain however....

Until you force the existing people in unemployment hotspots to move around the country and fill vacant jobs elsewhere, you can't rationally choke off the much-needed supply of labour that migrants provide.