The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Young people have always had it tough though, not just today because of immigration.

I was a barman, a labourer, an office cleaner, a shop worker, a data entry clerk and a popcorn seller before the age of 25, never earning more that £5.50/hr (except one job which I left for uni). The reason wasn't because of immigrants, it was because I didn't have good skills to sell.

The reason youngsters today are doing it tough are just the same, it's just that they are being fed a scape goat by people that are old enough to know better.

An immigrant brings demand for labour as well as supply of labour. The immigrant still needs to have a hair cut and to buy groceries and to have her appendix removed and to buy a pint at the end of the working week.

With all the respect in the world.....down on the ground, talking to people who are affected (though I'm not sure that's the right word) by immigration and have the impacts of immigration right at the heart of their community......things are different to what you describe .... and these things will not be picked up by any economist.

An economist is not looking at personal wealth of individuals. They are looking at overall effects. Those two things are very different.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that an immigrant will need someone to cut their hair. However, I highly doubt that the weight of demand each immigrant brings is enough to provide the supply of an additional job on a 1 to 1 basis.

On a pure finger in the air guess, I'd imagine we would need 20 immigrants to provide enough demand for an additional job....and that's where the problem lies.

No one is suggesting immgration doesn't bring extra demand. But what I am suggesting is that it doesn't bring enough demand to outweigh the extra supply of labour. All the economists apparently see, from my view, is the extra demand and tick the "positive" box.

We are likely to never agree on this. Economists and lower end workers are likely never to agree on this. Hence the rise of protest parties such as UKIP. When enough are effected, regardless of the economic case, regardless of whether economists think the majority are wrong...things have to change.... if they dont society itself changes.

Your example of you have lower end jobs dooesn't really change anything. Everyone, pretty much has lower jobs when they start out. The difference is, competition today often means those people have those lower end jobs for alot longer.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With all the respect in the world.....down on the ground, talking to people who are affected (though I'm not sure that's the right word) by immigration and have the impacts of immigration right at the heart of their community......things are different to what you describe .... and these things will not be picked up by any economist.

An economist is not looking at personal wealth of individuals. They are looking at overall effects. Those two things are very different.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that an immigrant will need someone to cut their hair. However, I highly doubt that the weight of demand each immigrant brings is enough to provide the supply of an additional job.

On a pure finger in the air guess, I'd imagine we would need 20 immigrants to provide enough demand for an additional job....and that's where the problem lies.

No one is suggesting immgration doesn't bring extra demand. But what I am suggesting is that it doesn't bring enough demand to outweigh the extra supply of labour.

I think of it this way.

There is no evidence that immigration of the sort seen in the UK (as opposed to refugee mass-migrations) reduces GDP per head. That means that the average immigrant is increasing GDP by the same amount as an existing citizen of the UK.

That means that migrants are each increasing demand for labour by 1 person per person. In fact the studies seem to show that immigrants slightly increase demand for labour so the average migrant will increase labour demand by 1.01 or something.

Someone will have tried to put a number on it. If you go through Google Scholar then you'll probably find something.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

increased comepetition for jobs, homes and school places.

With more people to sustain and serve comes more employment opportunities.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not really to fussed what an economist says.

This, I believe to be true.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can pretty much divide opinion just by looking at those that have and those that don't.

You can also divide it by looking at those that actually have, but think they don't because others have more.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Those that have are able to feel the rewards of immigration ... They see their jobs further secured by the increased demand.

But somehow this increased demand doesn't translate to better employment prospects for anyone else?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's more, they are likely to live in an area which is outside the affordanle scope of the incoming immigrants, so are not as effected personally by it.

Affected personally by it? Because merely living near 'foreigners' is a Bad Thing™? Or maybe it's all the lack of competition for the increased number of jobs that's affecting them?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As the wealth gap appears to grow, more and more are going to find they do not feel any economic benefits from immigration and only find themselves squeezed further

Not being able to perceive the benefits is not the same as not receiving them.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Someone leaving school 20, 30, 40 years ago never had anything like the competition for jobs and housing that those leaving school today have.

In 1984 the unemployment rate was 12% with a population of ~56 million. That's ~49 million jobs. Today it's more than 63 million with 7% unemployment equating to ~59 million jobs. If the job market is more competitive now than 30 years ago why are there more jobs per capita?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

the already "wealthy" ... Where they live, immigrants (by en large) cannot afford to live amongst them. They are .. unaffected by the social damage (and positives) that immigration brings.

Social damage? Are we back to people not being allowed to speak any god damn language they want to again?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Immigration today sorts a problem for those today with existing pensions etc. But the problem is simply kicked down the road 20 years or so. You cannot continue to fix our economy with immigration unless you continually ramp up immigration. A mere pyramid scheme.

No. Just no. There is no 'pyramid scheme' to it and nothing 'continual' about it. The increase in working age population is only required to balance an ageing population while life expectancy is increasing. This has been said many times before. Life expectancy won't continue increasing indefinitely. Arguing to dismiss the immigration solution to the age imbalance as unworkable by asserting that it is a perpetual problem is simply flawed and incorrect.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I think of it this way.

There is no evidence that immigration of the sort seen in the UK (as opposed to refugee mass-migrations) reduces GDP per head. That means that the average immigrant is increasing GDP by the same amount as an existing citizen of the UK.

I feel, much as Clapton does, that GDP is completely the wrong tool to be measuring this with.

Clapton has already outlined the reasons why.

We can increase GDP just by getting people to dig holes and fill them again. It hasn't benefited the country in any way other than showing an increase in GDP.

GeorgeHowell

It is true that GDP is an imperfect measure for quality of life. But it's all we have. Anything else builds in a degree of subjectivity and bias, which would be exploited by those wishing to peddle a particular line.

People vote with their pockets, we all know that. The average voter's attitude appears to be, "Increase my income and keep prices and taxes down, and I'll worry about my quality of life." Governments should encourage the optimisation GDP and GDP per head in real terms. The overall quality of life will be measured, in a fashion, when people go to the ballot box, but undoubtedly the financial factor still dominates.

Net immigration into this country in recent years has increased GDP, but not GDP per head. The effect on the quality of life is not measurable, because quality of life is not measurable. But judging by the recent election results there's a lot of not very happy bunnies out there.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I feel, much as Clapton does, that GDP is completely the wrong tool to be measuring this with.

Clapton has already outlined the reasons why.

We can increase GDP just by getting people to dig holes and fill them again. It hasn't benefited the country in any way other than showing an increase in GDP.

We can but we don't because we're not stupid.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

We can but we don't because we're not stupid.

Speak for yourself.

Bantex_2

I would suggest that the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration tend to be felt more by the less well off citizens, whereas those extolling its virtues tend be at the better off levels who stand to benefit from cheap labour.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

We can but we don't because we're not stupid.

I was merely suggesting a flaw with GDP when using it to measure the effects of immigration. You don't have to agree or disagree, but you did neither, just threw a meaningless line in.

Here's another example I've just stumbled across on the telegraph. Drugs and prostitution adds £10bn to the economy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10861170/Drugs-and-prostitution-add-10bn-a-year-to-UK-economy.html

I doube many of us would suggest this is a positive thing for society. However, it would be positive if you are solely looking at GDP to measure our success. Much the same as measuring immigration via GDP.

If immigration is positive because it increase GDP, then we'd have to accept that drugs and prostitution is positive because it too, raises GDP.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

I would suggest that the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration tend to be felt more by the less well off citizens, whereas those extolling its virtues tend be at the better off levels who stand to benefit from cheap labour.

That's just an assertion. It's meaningless.

I can say the sun will rise in the north tomorrow. Doesn't make it so.