Forum

Welcome to the Atheism UK Forum, which is for the discussion of topics related to atheism. This forum is for use by atheists and others that have a non-religious worldview, who live in the UK

Atheism UK also has a page and groups on Facebook.

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: 1
Author Topic: Immigration


MattR
Calcium
Posts: 156
Immigration
on: May 21, 2015, 12:45

A bit off topic again, but i just posted this on The Grauniad website. Just, y'know, getting stuff off my chest:

If one person earning £100k receives a 100% bonus while 99 people earning £10k receive a 10% pay cut, then per capita GDP has increased 0.1%. That last number was the basis for a Guardian front page a few weeks ago telling us that immigration is good for British people.

First the politicans and tabloids told us the migration problem was about benefits. People realised that was a lie, so the focus is shifted to 'illegal' working. Another big lie designed to distract the punters from the real issue.

The real problem is immigrants working legally. Big business and all the leaders of major political parties (including Nigel Farage if he is honest) love immigration because it is good for corporate profits. They don't care that it forces wages down for the already low paid.

Even The Guardian unwittingly supports the lie by insisting legal immigration is good for us (see above). I wish The Guardian would acknowledge one of the major problems faced by the low paid, rather than suggesting that only racists oppose immigration. Working people may want to support immigration for ethical or other reasons, but they should not do so because they think it is good for their bank balance.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/figures-show-migration-surge-as-david-cameron-unveils-illegal-working-bill#comment-52537525



Alcuin
Administrator
Posts: 957
Re: Immigration
on: May 22, 2015, 11:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB1d8mq-yI4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4jtjFA88Nw

But the point you make is that immigration reduces the wages of the low paid?
From:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration
Focusing on the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant labour immigration (see our briefing 'Migrants in the UK Labour Market'), Dustmann, Frattini and Preston (2013) find that an increase in the number of migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an increase in average wages of 0.1 to 0.3%. Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK’s working-age population lowers the average wage by 0.3% (Reed and Latorre 2009). These studies, which relate to different time periods, thus reach opposing conclusions but they agree that the effects of immigration on averages wages are relatively small.

The effects of immigration on workers within specific wage ranges or in specific occupations are more significant. The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).

The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Unquote.

I don't want a 0.6% (or whatever) wage reduction, but I didn't think that was the main concern about immigration and certainly not the only one. I think some of the cultures and norms that immigrants bring to the country and their standards of education are very important. For example, the influx of religious and poorly educated economic migrants from East Asia is a concern and a root cause of Islamist extremist behaviour and Islamism in general. Arguably, the doctors, nurses and engineers who are western in outlook and no more than very mildly religious have not been detrimental or intolerably numerous. Students stays are often temporary and profitable to the UK. I thought it was more the nature of immigration even more than the extent of it that was the problem and corporate profits are of interest to both politicians and voters.



MattR
Calcium
Posts: 156
Re: Immigration
on: May 22, 2015, 17:01

https...Unqoute.

In other words:

If one person earning £100k receives a 100% bonus while 99 people earning £10k receive a 10% pay cut, then per capita GDP has increased 0.1%.

🙂

I agree there are other issues around immigration. However, wages of the majority of the population is the one that is universally accepted as a valid one. That must be why there is so much mis-information and obscufication around it.

I don't want more people in this country who are homophobes, think women are 2nd class citizens and who think murder is an appropiate resposne to a cartoon. But to say so risks accusations of racism... bizarrely!



Alcuin
Administrator
Posts: 957
Re: Immigration
on: May 23, 2015, 19:32

Quote from MattR on May 22, 2015, 17:01

https...Unqoute.

In other words:

If one person earning £100k receives a 100% bonus while 99 people earning £10k receive a 10% pay cut, then per capita GDP has increased 0.1%.

You mean per capita income increased by 0.1%, not per capita GDP..
"DEFINITION of 'Gross Domestic Product - GDP' The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis." And..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Quote from MattR on May 22, 2015, 17:01
🙂

I agree there are other issues around immigration. However, wages of the majority of the population is the one that is universally accepted as a valid one. That must be why there is so much mis-information and obscufication around it.

I don't want more people in this country who are homophobes, think women are 2nd class citizens and who think murder is an appropiate resposne to a cartoon. But to say so risks accusations of racism... bizarrely!

wages of the majority and Universally accepted as a valid one? Well I suppose so. It's affect on low wage jobs is recognised, especially considering inflation was 4% or 5% even using the CPI*. I'm not sure if it's most people's main (immigration) concern or not. Neither this Telegraph article nor the mirror one I looked at mentioned immigration affecting wages....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10286598/Mass-immigration-is-testing-our-tolerance.html
And many economists and The Economist Magazine argue that immigration helps the economy overall, which can't be easily dismissed as all 'misinformation or obfuscation', given current economic theories.

(And I don't think you sound racist. I entirely agree with the last bit 🙂 )

* I notice nobody is up in arms about replacing RPI with CPI, even though RPI is usually about 1% above CPI. I think that change may have bad consequences for savers. Maybe it will be bad for the very low paid too but nobody seems to see the significance of it. Perhaps the change in policy was recommended by the Office of Budget Responsibility but Labour should have pointed out that people asking for wage increases tend to be influenced by headline inflation figures. Nowadays I think those figures are about 1% below what they would be without the change from RPI to CPI. See graph...
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1222/monetary-policy/ecb-vs-bank-of-england/



MattR
Calcium
Posts: 156
Re: Immigration
on: May 26, 2015, 09:19

Alcuin, I was using income as a proxy for GDP. They're broadly the same, excluding balance of trade and Government surplus/deficit. Yes, I don't necessarily think that wages is people's principal beef about immigration, but it is one thing that everyone agrees is a fair topic for debate, whether on the left or right.

I'm sure economists are right that immigration is good for the economy in the narrow sense that it drives total national growth. However, income per capita is what matters. People now recognise this and that is what led to the recent study cited by The Guardian that GDP per capita increased 0.1% as a result of recent immigration. But as I pointed out, that disguises gains for the few and pain for the masses.

It really doesn't matter if immigration generates 1%, 2%, or 10% GDP growth if 99 out of 100 people suffer real pay cuts. I maintain that to claim otherwise (or to ignore the issue) is misinformation or obscufication.



Daniel-
stretton
Hydrogen
Posts: 3
Re: Immigration
on: May 12, 2019, 19:36

Yes all people are descended from immigrants except maybe some people in africa if you want to get the broadest possible definition but you need to look at immigration from a different perspective. As i think he points out immigration has great benefits as he points out but also can come with massive downsides. for example if more people immigrate into a country than their are jobes, especially if these immigrants are less qualified on average than the native population then that creates unemployment and makes the labour of people less valuable since there are now more people in the country that can do a job. As well as this if people immigrate to a country on a large enough scale then that also affects the culture and social cohesion of the nation. This is because people tend to congregate with other people that are similar to them so if lots of people from the same culture move to another country then they won't mix very well with the native population as fast as when its fewer. You see entire areas becoming isolated and not mixing. This leads to these cultures clashing which lead to a rise in general civil unrest such as racism, abuse, and people moving towards the extremist positions of the political spectrum.

Not only does it affect the nation that is receiving the large number of immigrants but also it negatively affects the countries that people are immigrating from. For example usually the best and the brightest are the ones to leave as well as masses of other people which leave a massive shortage of educated, intellectual people as well as young people in the country. For example there are more sudanese doctors in new york than in the whole of sudan. This of course holds these nations back from developing when all their best just up and leave.

In short the first world nations cannot uplift every person in a second or third world country by just allowing them to immigrate in mass to first world countries without putting so much pressure on the county that it ultimately ruins it and developing and third world countries find it impossible or very hard to progress when all their best and brightest end up leaving the country. We need to tightly control the number of people immigrating if you want to maintain or increase the living standards of countries.

Pages: 1
Mingle Forum by cartpauj | ElegantPress by Theme4Press and SOFTthemes | Sponsored by Sasina Therapy
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.079 seconds.