In my opinion, if you let enough desperately poor, badly educated people - from whatever background - into any area, within a welfare-sate type economy, you will see a negative effect on that area and the lives of those in and around the place. It is very very difficult to extrapolate any economic cost or benefit to the exercise, but the downside in terms of quality of life is pretty straightforward, as is the potential for civil unrest.
Again, as has been shown, we in this country would be far worse off without unskilled immigration. We simply don't have enough young people of working age paying taxes, the fact that some people lose out is simply part of life, there are always trade offs.
Here I agree with you 100%. But allowing and enabling unskilled immigration is not the same as wholesale immigration, from regions where education and living standards fall way beyond the norm here in the UK, to the point of creating ghettos.Tom_W1987 - Member
Again, as has been shown, we in this country would be far worse off without unskilled immigration.
So two of the main political parties saw fit to issue statements on something that [u]you say[/u] never happened? Oh really.munrobiker - Member
I lived in Sheffield when that happened and as far as I could tell there wasn't any issue, it was media hysteria
unskilled immigration
Don't we have a lot of unskilled unemployed people here already? Is it that they don't want to work or can't find work?
Here I agree with you 100%. But allowing and enabling unskilled immigration is not the same as wholesale immigration, from regions where education and living standards fall way beyond the norm here in the UK, to the point of creating ghettos.
Fair enough Digga.
footflaps - MemberIt might be good for GDP but not necessarily good for every person esp those with no / low skills who will see downward pay trends....
So the question is, are you against all the other things that drive down salaries by much more? If you see low wages as a problem, let's raise wages, let's not blame immigrants for it. The minimum wage is still less than the living wage, the economy we're told is recovering but salaries aren't and even when they do, there'll be no correction- nobody that accepted pay freezes (ie, real world cuts) or cuts or hour reduction because "there is no alternative" will see a compensating increase when the companies are doing better.
If you see low wages as a problem, let's raise wages
I'd love to.
let's not blame immigrants for it.
I'm not blaming anyone, but if you increase the pool of labour faster than the economy is growing (in any market), it will drive down wages for that labour pool.
NW, falling wages reflect our weak productivity record. Raising wages while productivity continues to fall merely makes us uncompetitive with the obvious knock on effects. But your point about other factors is valid. Immigration pales into insignificance in relation to other factors that determine UK wages. It's an easy, but false, excuse.
Footflaps, good job that isn't happening then. Don't forget the demand side as well. Immigration affects both sides of the equation which is why net, net, immigration has a positive impact on wages in the UK.
Good article on this in Today's Guardian:
Footflaps, good job that isn't happening then. Don't forget the demand side as well. Immigration affects both sides of the equation which is why net, net, immigration has a positive impact on wages in the UK.
Have you got a reference for this? Not read anything saying immigration has increased wages, nor heard any economists saying this....
Yes.
I have not read any that say otherwise
You have...me
TBF, the data is a little mixed. There are plenty of studies on the positive impact of immigration on average wages for the reasons I have already given - largely the increase in demand for labour that the likes of UKIP like to forget. At the lower end of the wage scale the picture is more mixed. However, where it points to downward pressure on low wages the hit is taken mainly by existing immigrants rather than the "domestic" (for want if a better word) workforce. A substitution of the migrant labour force.
Bottom line there are far more important factors depressing low wages than immigration. Not that UKIP and other xenophones will admit it.
Have you got a reference for this? Not read anything saying immigration has increased wages, nor heard any economists saying this....
To quote Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, The question was:
[b]What were the impacts on jobs and wages of this move?[/b]
"The short answer seems to be: not much. Indeed, it’s fairly obvious that wages are generally higher and jobs easier to come by in areas of high immigration like London, while many low migration areas have relatively depressed labour markets. Take Clacton, for example, where the immigrant population is less than half the national average – wages are 20% below the national average, while the proportion of people on benefit is far higher. Of course, this mixes cause and effect. But since the big increase in immigration from the EU in 2004 there have been a number of studies on this topic, using sophisticated econometric techniques to tease out the actual impacts. A government summary of the evidence concluded that there was “little evidence in the literature of a statistically significant impact from EU migration on native employment outcomes”. So it doesn’t appear that they take our jobs. On wages, the picture is more mixed, with some evidence immigration actually pushes wages up overall, while exerting downward pressure on wages for low-skilled workers. But as yet the impacts seem pretty small – certainly compared to other factors such as technological change, employers’ increasing demand for skilled workers and the positive impact of the national minimum wage."
[b]But how can this be? Isn’t it just the economics of supply and demand – if you increase supply of workers, wages will fall? And if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t.[/b]
"No. People who say this (and many do) [b][u]usually don’t actually know or understand basic economics.[/u][/b] More immigrant workers does increase the supply of labour. But, because immigrants earn money, spend money, set up businesses and so on, it also increases the demand for labour. And it’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job – but it doesn’t meant he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration. So immigration may have a negative or positive impact on jobs and wages for British workers; so far, the evidence suggests that the direct impacts have been rather small."
IHNRAT but
wrecker - Member
I have no problem with people moving around to find work at all. Many brits did it in the 90s, heading off to Germany.
I'm not happy with any receiving benefits though.
I'm not of the opinion that the vast majority of people come to the UK do so to claim benefits, but if the above is true then they won't mind if there are no benefits on offer.
So when would you let someone born overseas claim benefits?
- if they have lived and worked in the UK for 15 yrs and then find themselves temporarily unemployed?
- if they have lived and worked in the UK for 20 yrs, have no surviving close relatives back home and become unable to work through ill health?
- if they have been working here for 3 years, married to a "brit" and they become disabled?
- if they have been working here for 3 years, living with a "brit" and their partner become disabled?
- if they arrived here as a toddler, and grew up here, went to school here and have no memories of their "home country"?
- if they've been living here for 10 yrs, married to another "foreigner" who is in low paid work, with 3 children born in this country and they find themselves unemployed or unable to work due to illness?
- if they've worked here for 40 yrs and reach retirement age, having been paying UK tax/ni all their working life?
- if their school age / pre-school children were born here and they are widowed?
- if they moved here with their children several years ago, they have now grown up, left home and had "british" grand-children but the grandparents now find themselves out of work, or unfit for work?
- a new parent from overseas who's british born child has a disability
- a single parent from overseas who's eldest, foreign born, son has a disability but who has a UK born child too.
- an expectant mother (with foreign born partner) has been working in the UK and is then made redundant when her employer goes bust.
- a 38 yr old who's been here for 8 yrs and doesn't get on with his only surviving parent back "home" who finds themselves homeless following the breakdown of a 4 yr relationship.
- a 23 yr old who's been studying at an English university (paying fees) for three years and planning to stay, had job interviews lined up when they are knocked off their bike by a british driver and will need to spend 4 months recuperating before they can resume seeking work.
I'm not sure if all those DO qualify for benefits but I'm sure some would and most should. As soon as you make a blanket rule as you suggest its easy to think of exceptions. Actually when you start to think about all possible exceptions you can soon find yourself in a situation which probably isn't a million miles from the status quo!
[quote=Jonathan Portes ]Indeed, it’s fairly obvious that wages are generally higher and jobs easier to come by in areas of high immigration like London, while many low migration areas have relatively depressed labour markets. Take Clacton, for example, where the immigrant population is less than half the national average – wages are 20% below the national average, while the proportion of people on benefit is far higher. Of course, this mixes cause and effect.
No shit Sherlock. I wonder why there aren't many immigrants in Clacton?
Not going to argue with him on the general economic stuff, but surely it's clear which way round the cause and effect is here?
@footflaps - yes a very good article, thanks for posting I missed it yesterday.
Seems to be a lack of a European identity on this forum! I guess ultimately that's what this comes down to. Whether you see Europeans as foreigners or not.
Personally, I don't.
So immigration may have a negative or positive impact on jobs and wages for British workers; so far, the evidence suggests that the direct impacts have been rather small.
So basically no evidence that it has actually increased wages as THM was suggesting.....
immigration has a positive impact on wages in the UK.
So immigration may have a negative or positive impact on jobs and wages for British workers; so far, the evidence suggests that the direct impacts have been rather small.So basically no evidence that it has actually decreased wages as footflaps was suggesting.....
immigration has a positive impact on wages in the UK.
Eff Tee Eff Dubbleyou.
So basically no evidence that it has actually decreased wages as footflaps was suggesting.....
Although it doesn't seem they were looking at the specific roles, more the general affect on the economy, which are two very different things.
What I said was
I'm not blaming anyone, but if you increase the pool of labour faster than the economy is growing (in any market), it will drive down wages for that labour pool.
As an example of this effect, we outsource stuff to India rather than employ more local SW coders, which keeps wages lower locally. We even have Indian coders in our UK office (on 1/3 the wage of the locals) which means the mean SW coder wage has gone down and local people who might want a job with us have to compete with Indians on 1/3 the wage. If we can buy that skill in India we will do so.
Not that I'm against immigration, I just don't think it's 100% rosy for everyone....
I live in a country where over 50% of the population is immigrant. Other than voting (which needs a Luxembourg passport) there's nothing a native has a right to that I don't, and this from a socially quite conservative country. Britain benefits from immigration and whilst, yes, there are things that don't go well, the idea of returning to a Europe before open borders is quite abhorrent.
As for benefits, should I be able to claim UK benefits if I lose my job here even though I pay no taxes in the UK now? Should I retire on a UK state pension if I have 15 years of working in the UK and 30 in Luxembourg?
Edit. Double post
footflaps - Member
So basically no evidence that it has actually increased wages as THM was suggesting.....
Incorrect. Just that the quote provided above does not answer your question directly although it does highlight the relevant points.
At the aggregate level, the evidence shows:
1. Immigration has a net positive impact on overall wages
2. (As stated above this is because it increases the demand (more) as well as the supply of labour
3. The effect differed by wage category
4. There is some evidence that immigration exerts downward pressure on low skilled workers BUT
5. The main losers are recent immigrants
6. The overall impact at all levels however is small (as is often the case with immigration) and other factors are much more important
Blaming Johnny Foreigner for downward pressure on wages is wrong but that will not stop the xenophones from arguing on that very basis in all parties.
Don't confuse outsourcing with outsourcing with immigration and the fact that immigrants do not just increase the supply of labour they also increase it's demand. As someone quoted above, non-economists tend to miss this basic point.
@tmh there is a world of difference with regard to the economic benefit or otherwise between uncontrolled and unskilled immigration and controlled immigration of skilled workers or talented students. You use the word "average", that covers a multitude of sins and the situation which exists now within the EU is unprecedented and so historical studies are of limited use. Where you can be sure that immigration is beneficial is if you set up a system (eg Aussie style points) which ensures you get the people you need.
The thing is that the UK does get the people it needs. If it didn't need unskilled labour they wouldn't get jobs.
My MP has emailed this letter to all the constituents on her list. It's also going to some local papers:
This month we have had two important parliamentary by-elections. Important because we are now only 7 months from a General Election and important because of the UKIP surge that was seen in both. By-elections are always an opportunity for the electorate to register protest between General Elections but this close to May 2015 I don’t think we can dismiss the outcomes so easily and because I think that politicians should be truthful I wanted to be up front about where I stand on the issues that came out of both of these by-elections.
It is clear that voters are concerned about immigration but I think it is important to get the whole issue into perspective. The UK is the 6th richest country in the world. It has got rich and stayed rich on immigration. Over generations immigrants have come to this country, worked for it, fought for it and even died for it. My family were immigrants and so were many of yours. So whilst I do agree that we need to have clear policies on immigration that attracts skills and innovation that we lack and that contributes to our economy not take away from it and I also believe that we need strong border controls that prevent those who have no right to be here from getting here and staying here. I don’t believe that we can turn our back on the rest of the world, nor do I believe it would be in the country’s interests to do so.
I am also concerned about all the negative, one-sided propaganda that is generated about the EU and its impact on our lives. I support our membership of the EU for many economic reasons not least the many hundreds of thousands of NE jobs that depend on our membership. I am also keenly aware that before the EU was formed we, in Europe, committed genocide on one another every 30 years or so. 50 million people died in the 2nd World War, most of them were civilians. Less than 30 years before that there was the carnage of the 1st World War where my family and almost every other family in the NE were bereaved. Before that Crimea, the Franco-Russian Wars, the Franco-German Wars, Trafalgar, Waterloo and on and on and on. The EU is not perfect, it needs reform and despite it we still have wars and people still get killed but since its inception there are far fewer of our young men, our fathers, husbands, sons and daughters killed in wars in Europe.
Pat Glass MP
@neil, thanks for posting such an interesting and passionate message. I would make 2 points however.
The UK may indeed have gotten rich on immigration (I do have some questions on that statement) but it did so with controlled immigration before the EU free for all of the last 10-15 years. What concerns me is we could get a whole lot poorer if the current situation persists and indeed as is likely without fundamental change, intensifies
We are all thankful that Europe has by and large lived in peace since 1945, closer economic ties and a vested interest in co-operation have played a part in that. But again 60 years of peace where achieved, in part, via an EU which focused on free trade and not widespread freedom of movement. I would argue quite strongly that the recent EU expansion including the automatic adoption of policies which where developed when the EU looked very different has done much to destabilise Europe and see a worrying rise in more extreme politics.
The thing is that the UK does get the people it needs. If it didn't need unskilled labour they wouldn't get jobs.
So why have we got so many unemployed unskilled people?
The thing is that the UK does get the people it needs. If it didn't need unskilled labour they wouldn't get jobs.
@atlaz, in addition to the point made by @mudshark you have the fact that EU immigrants don't have to get a job, for example they can come here and sleep rough around West London and beg on Oxford St by day, they get deported (at great cost) then they come straight back. Plus the fact they can come and further undercut the wages of existing low paid employees. You can come to the UK without a job, that's a situation in most countries with immigration controls that you cannot do, you must get a job offer first and the employer must prove you bring unique skills or that a local person was not available to do the job
I am also keenly aware that before the EU was formed we, in Europe, committed genocide on one another every 30 years or so. 50 million people died in the 2nd World War, most of them were civilians. Less than 30 years before that there was the carnage of the 1st World War where my family and almost every other family in the NE were bereaved. Before that Crimea, the Franco-Russian Wars, the Franco-German Wars, Trafalgar, Waterloo and on and on and on.
It's astonishing how some people still regularly trot out this bollocks that if it wasn't for the EEC/EU Britain France and Germany would be constantly fighting each other.
And I have no idea how the EEC/EU is responsible for avoiding repeats of "the Franco-Russian Wars", did Russia join the EU without me noticing ?
.
So whilst I do agree that we need to have clear policies on immigration that attracts skills and innovation that we lack...
Surely skilled foreign workers are the people we least want to attract, or are the three quarter of a million young unemployed in the UK not entitled to learn skills ?
The UK may indeed have gotten rich on immigration (I do have some questions on that statement) but it did so with controlled immigration before the EU free for all of the last 10-15 years.
Not sure about that?!?
Not even sure about free for alll. But anyway we are signed up to a treaty that has freedom of movement of people as one of its core principles. You and I have both taken advantage of that:
What concerns me is we could get a whole lot poorer if the current situation persists and indeed as is likely without fundamental change, intensifies
Evidence so far points in the other direction. Most scare stories on immigration fall over as quickly as an Alex Salmond one.
Surely skilled foreign workers are the people we least want to attract
On what grounds? I employ a high percentage of very skilled foreign workers and they in turn allow me to employ domestic workers. Win, win.
or are the three quarter of a million young unemployed in the UK not entitled to learn skills ?
Non sequitur. They are entitled to learn skills as well not instead.
On what grounds?
The second part of the sentence which you dissected explains.
.
Non sequitur. They are entitled to learn skills as well not instead.
It's remarkable logic which brings you to the conclusion that people will be trained in skills when fully trained workers are available. Historically training has been offered to replace those skilled workers that retire/die/leave the industry, there is no need to train anyone if there is a constant supply of skilled workers.
Well that is a very narrow perspective that I don't share
The same narrow logic that only views immigration as affecting the supply of labour.
Funnily enough I "train" to grow businesses not to replace others. Again a wider perspective required!
So why have we got so many unemployed unskilled people?
Because they were already here and already unemployed?
If Jonny foreigner wants to go through the upheaval and leave their country to work here, I applaud them.
Some of you might want to trace your family history btw, you might realise some way back in history, it's what your relatives did.
Because they were already here and already unemployed?
So there are jobs for them but they don't want them? Or they truly are useless?
I recently hired an IT worker from Bangalore, who moved over here with his wife.
We spent quite a bit of time trying to find anyone with similar skills (nothing special, just able to understand embedded computer programming) and he was really our only option. There were only a handful of UK "native" applicants, and they were all totally unsuitable for one reason or another (duffers for the most part).
EDIT:
So there are jobs for them but they don't want them? Or they truly are useless?
Who's going to say it then?
oldnpastit - Member
I recently hired an IT worker from Bangalore, who moved over here with his wife.
Precisely, exactly, definitely the sort of immigrant we want and need. Trouble is, the country is not infinitely large, or wealthy, so we only have capacity for a limited number of immigrants each year.
The current, EU-driven immigration system sees us swamped with a lot of low value un-skilled workers, only some of whom are actually needed and none of whom are really capable of helping us push GDP-per-head up.
As for the EU, if ever there were a more blatant way of rewarding failure and punishing success: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
digga -1
As for the EU, if ever there were a more blatant way of rewarding failure and punishing success: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
We do most of our trade with Europe because of the EU free trade agreement. We can afford the money because it will give us more back.
A European Commission study of the single market in 2007 found that the EU GDP was raised by 2.2 per cent (€233 billion) and 2.75 million jobs were created between the introduction of the single market in 1992 and 2006. For the UK, that increase in GDP would have been around £25 billion. The Government’s Department of Business, Innovation & Skills estimates that EU Member States trade twice as much with each other as a result of the single market – which they estimate has meant that increased trade within the EU since the 1980s could have been worth around six per cent higher income per capita in the UK. Exports to other EU countries account for 51 per cent of the UK’s exports of goods and services, worth £200 billion; trade with the US, by contrast, constitutes 13 per cent of UK exports.
http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=15296
The current, EU-driven immigration system sees us swamped with a lot of low value un-skilled workers, only some of whom are actually needed and none of whom are really capable of helping us push GDP-per-head up.
The Migration Observatory has reviewed the evidence and found that the net GDP gain from immigration is +0.45%. Of course it would be more if there weren't as many ("swamped" is almost certainly sensationalist nonsense) un-skilled workers it'd go up more, but since they put it up anyway we can afford a small amount of slack. The majority of immigrants increase the GDP. There is plenty of evidence posted in this thread that shows that the situation regarding EU immigrants is more beneficial than all immigrants.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
@mubro - we wouldn't stop trading with Europe if we weren't in the EU. We'd have new trade agreements.
we wouldn't stop trading with Europe if we weren't in the EU. We'd have new trade agreements.
Plus whatever unilateral levies etc a government could impose whenever it likes. I'm not sure many companies would appreciate that risk.
Of course we wouldn't stop trading but our trade would go down, a number of large companies (Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc) would jump ship to the continent to keep trading in the common market and dodge the import taxes and so on and all the "cheap shitty EU labour" would go back too. But then there'd be no jobs at all for anyone left here and GDP would go down. And since there has been an actual scientific study showing that membership of the EU has pushed the UK's GDP up by £25bn I think it'd be fair to assume it'd go down by just as much.
Alternatively we would "do a Norway" and not be part of the EU and still have to play by their rules of free trade and free movement with none of the benefits and a reduction in trade- maybe not to pre-EU levels, but a reduction in trade and GDP none the less. Especially given we don't have as rich a source of income as Norway and that a lot of the companies that do major trade with the EU will still jump ship to be remain in the common market rather than an unstable fringe.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/norway/
Anyway, that is not the point of this thread. The point is that a lot of figures have been put up showing the free movement of people in the EU is a good thing and some people are happy to ignore that in order to support their own beliefs.
[quote=munrobiker ]Alternatively we would "do a Norway" and not be part of the EU and still have to play by their rules of free trade and free movement with none of the benefits and a reduction in trade- maybe not to pre-EU levels, but a reduction in trade and GDP none the less.
Is that just your conjecture, or do you have any proof?
