Migration into UK soars
Discussion
964Cup said:
HonestIago said:
We do NOT need unskilled immigrants. The number of them in work here is purely a function of our own perverse system of benefits and tax credits. Enough Brits would be more than able/willing to do menial/unskilled work if it was incentivised properly.
But I thought the problem was immigrants claiming benefits? If the current system makes it attractive for a (for example) Czech (EU citizen, with right of abode and entitlement to UK benefits) to work in Pret a Manger, why doesn't it attract Britons to the same job?The Czech working in Pret a Manger has come from Eastern Europe where standards of living/wages are substantially lower and as such, a minimum wage job in the UK can be very appealing. The unemployed Brit can face effective marginal tax rates of 70%+ moving into work due to the rate at which their benefits are clawed back. Who do you think has the bigger incentive to go and wait on tables?
Mr_B said:
Once again we get the usual people turn up and say it's all good and fine and needed without any thought. Immigration unchecked is a massive lost opportunity for the UK. Have immigration, have the debate about how many is a sustainable number each year for long term planning, but just pitching up and wishing to be seen as a nice person for supporting immigration in the face of those you see as nasty for not totally embracing it is the height of stupidity.
This country could have picked who it wanted , when it wanted and had almost none of the downsides that the EU open door has given us. That was the ideal, the current system is much less than that. Thinking of today and proclaiming reports that in the short term immigration is of benefit but long term will result in a huge cost, isn't that bright. People should really be angry that immigration is delivering massively less benefit than it should be. It seems here that some have been suckered because they have been told they made a £2 profit for something, when they really should have got £6 for it if they'd just thought about it a bit more.
Do any of the 'pro' side want to stick their neck out and talk numbers, like how many each year is sustainable and good for the UK. Not just for today but long term ?
Immigration is one of those areas where those who suppose themselves to be educated loudly proclaim its virtues without bothering to undertake virtually any research into the issue whatsoever because to be "educated" means apparently that you must be in favour as opposed to those stupid bigoted people who are opposed.This country could have picked who it wanted , when it wanted and had almost none of the downsides that the EU open door has given us. That was the ideal, the current system is much less than that. Thinking of today and proclaiming reports that in the short term immigration is of benefit but long term will result in a huge cost, isn't that bright. People should really be angry that immigration is delivering massively less benefit than it should be. It seems here that some have been suckered because they have been told they made a £2 profit for something, when they really should have got £6 for it if they'd just thought about it a bit more.
Do any of the 'pro' side want to stick their neck out and talk numbers, like how many each year is sustainable and good for the UK. Not just for today but long term ?
First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
loose cannon said:
oyster said:
How do you prpose to fill current vacancies if we can't import skills?
In any case, immigration and flow of labour is as capitalistic as it gets.
Make work more beneficial than benefits end of problem !In any case, immigration and flow of labour is as capitalistic as it gets.
By closing off the supply of immigrant labour before opening up the tap of home-grown labour, all this will do is make the skills gap even bigger, and we'll be back in another recession.
Or is it...... actually not really about economics and really about cultures?
oyster said:
So why isn't UKIP (and other anti-immigration folk) campaigning for that BEFORE slowing down the rate of immigration?
By closing off the supply of immigrant labour before opening up the tap of home-grown labour, all this will do is make the skills gap even bigger, and we'll be back in another recession.
Or is it...... actually not really about economics and really about cultures?
What skills gap?By closing off the supply of immigrant labour before opening up the tap of home-grown labour, all this will do is make the skills gap even bigger, and we'll be back in another recession.
Or is it...... actually not really about economics and really about cultures?
As has been pointed out the numbers of highly skilled immigrants is roughly equivalent to the number of their UK equivalents that have emigrated.
And so what if is also about culture?. There is an economic benefit to highly skilled immigration and none to the mass migration seen since 1997, but yes there is also a cultural argument as well. Why we should only view the immigration debate purely through economic grounds I have no idea. I like living in Britain if you replace all the people with those from other cultures then it will only remain Britain as a geographical expression.
DeanR32 said:
Mr B
Don't get me wrong, and I'm sure I've said this before. They can do whatever they want at the borders. And I don't like seeing people from overseas outside the local Wickes looking for work (although at least they're looking for some!).
I see, in my day to day coming and going, plenty of immigrants doing a fine job (whatever field that may be), and I don't think they should be denied the chance to come here to work and get along. From the lowest skilled to the highest, I don't mind them coming here an having a good go at it.
No one like to see houses full of slave workers, or the criminally minded that come here. Saying that, I don't like our own criminals much neither
You can have all types of people come and get the chance to live, work and contribute. I don't see the need for absolutely everyone to get that chance though and think that even the most basic checks are needed. Having the ability to control it is key for me though, I wan't a government to govern and no leave things to chance. Todays figures prove there is next to no control because we have the Tories who were keen to get the numbers down ( rightly or wrongly ) but who can't do it. Don't get me wrong, and I'm sure I've said this before. They can do whatever they want at the borders. And I don't like seeing people from overseas outside the local Wickes looking for work (although at least they're looking for some!).
I see, in my day to day coming and going, plenty of immigrants doing a fine job (whatever field that may be), and I don't think they should be denied the chance to come here to work and get along. From the lowest skilled to the highest, I don't mind them coming here an having a good go at it.
No one like to see houses full of slave workers, or the criminally minded that come here. Saying that, I don't like our own criminals much neither
As I say , too many people just wanting to look kind and non racist by constantly saying there is no problem and don't look here. Tell me for example how many years can 290k people be sustained in the UK and what happens when you think it should be cut ?
JagLover said:
Immigration is one of those areas where those who suppose themselves to be educated loudly proclaim its virtues without bothering to undertake virtually any research into the issue whatsoever because to be "educated" means apparently that you must be in favour as opposed to those stupid bigoted people who are opposed.
First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. The last report we discussed on here suggested migration was an economic positive.First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As for the economic benefit look at the UK population demographics.
We are a fast aging population. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.
If you look at Japan you will see a country which has a similarly aging population and minimal immigration. Soon over 50% of the population will be retired. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
Mrr T said:
The last report we discussed on here suggested migration was an economic positive.
It's exactly that soundbite I have a problem with. Many studies also say there is little to no benefit, even the ones that do site a benefit then talk about a huge long term loss. I find when people just want to say that sound bite and think that's case closed, it's lazy not to want to look long term or break it down to which areas are a benefit both long and short term and which aren't, to the point of doing it country by country. You seem happy that someone told you you've made a profit today. You may well have, but I'm saying that it should have been a lot more than that if managed properly and that it really represents a massive wasted chance that is costing people.Mrr T said:
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. The last report we discussed on here suggested migration was an economic positive.
As for the economic benefit look at the UK population demographics.
We are a fast aging population. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.
If you look at Japan you will see a country which has a similarly aging population and minimal immigration. Soon over 50% of the population will be retired. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
Declaring immigration a net benefit, or otherwise, due to demographics is far too simplistic. It's obvious that all other things being equal; you increase your population then you increase your GDP but rarely your GDP per capita -> good for the economy on paper but bad for standards of living. It's what you have done the last 5 years. Now if you replace financiers, doctors, engineers and wealthy retirees with manual labourers from eastern europe and illiterate peasants from the subcontinent it's pretty fecking obvious that it is not going to be an 'economic positive'. The last most overlooked and blindingly obvious point is that changing your demographics by importing those of working age is simply setting yourself up for an even bigger demographic problem 30 years later when they retire... We are all living longer, every country can't prop up its retirees with more and more youngsters, we simply need to change when we retire and how much we expect the state to cope with us when we are old, ie, not at all.As for the economic benefit look at the UK population demographics.
We are a fast aging population. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.
If you look at Japan you will see a country which has a similarly aging population and minimal immigration. Soon over 50% of the population will be retired. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Immigration is one of those areas where those who suppose themselves to be educated loudly proclaim its virtues without bothering to undertake virtually any research into the issue whatsoever because to be "educated" means apparently that you must be in favour as opposed to those stupid bigoted people who are opposed.
First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
So... theres been a HUGE increase with cheap imported labour YET we now owe 1.5 trillion ( a huge increase over the past 5 years ( in-line with the extra people imported ) ) and are still having to borrow billions each week.
It's not really working is it, or do we need to increase these imports? or simply manage who comes here? how hard can it be..
300k of people earning 50k + PA would bring a massive benefit, 300k of people earning 10k does not. Brains leaving the UK, replaced by cheaper brains... again not great.
And don't forget a good chunk of the ££ earn here is sent back home
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Immigration is one of those areas where those who suppose themselves to be educated loudly proclaim its virtues without bothering to undertake virtually any research into the issue whatsoever because to be "educated" means apparently that you must be in favour as opposed to those stupid bigoted people who are opposed.
First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. The last report we discussed on here suggested migration was an economic positive.First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As for the economic benefit look at the UK population demographics.
We are a fast aging population. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.
If you look at Japan you will see a country which has a similarly aging population and minimal immigration. Soon over 50% of the population will be retired. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
We do need considered, controlled immigration. Not sure it will solve the problem.
The experience of many (myself included) is three or four 2-3 bed properties in your street suddenly overrun with 8+ single adults of foreign origin working all hours.
Nothing wrong with that at all in principle except little/no English spoken, parking immediately oversubscribed (often blocking driveways), rubbish strew about because bins are overloaded well in advance of collection day, loud late-night drinking fests, etc etc.
Again, this behaviour is not limited to people from overseas, yes, there are laws to deal with all this. But no-one wants to acknowledge what situations like this do to people living in such areas.
I was lucky enough to get married & move out of the area. But the people who can't have to deal with it & we already live in a less than ideal world.
For my part, I did try to interact with the newcomers & offer some help (particularly over the rubbish) - one house was ok but mainly because there was a couple of chaps who spoke very good English. The other places - was a waste of time.
Add to theses type of problems the sentiment that we are breeding a bunch of barely literate, work-shy layabouts whist importing vast numbers to do the work our home-grown lot are too lazy to do themselves & UKIP suddenly become very appealing.
superkartracer said:
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Immigration is one of those areas where those who suppose themselves to be educated loudly proclaim its virtues without bothering to undertake virtually any research into the issue whatsoever because to be "educated" means apparently that you must be in favour as opposed to those stupid bigoted people who are opposed.
First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. Without immigration we will never afford pensions and health care when we are older.First of all what are the economic benefits of mass migration?. As long as the person is working it will increase GDP but what matters from a standard of living perspective is GDP per head and the kind of open door policy the UK has had is as likely to reduce GDP per head as it is to increase it.
GDP per head is in any case only an approximation of standard of living and housing costs, congestion, access to green spaces etc, are all made worse by unrestricted immigration.
So... theres been a HUGE increase with cheap imported labour YET we now owe 1.5 trillion ( a huge increase over the past 5 years ( in-line with the extra people imported ) ) and are still having to borrow billions each week.
If you are, you're doing a serious disservice to the anti-immigration debate.
Mrr T said:
As an educated person I have bothered to do some research. The last report we discussed on here suggested migration was an economic positive.
The last report discussed on PH's said that migration from the EU was a net fiscal benefit. Even using the rather questionable assumptions the study used to boost the fiscal benefit it found that migration from outside the EU was a net fiscal cost.This says nothing about long term fiscal contribution or GDP per head.
currybum said:
Given that the economic impact is hardly convincing either way, it could suggest that it’s probably marginal and from a purely economic perspective not the biggest issue we need to address.
So it leaves the ideological argument, you either don’t like the idea of people coming here and competing for jobs and services..or you don’t mind.
For me the concept of restricting people just because they were lucky/unlucky enough to be born on a particular land mass is a bit strange.
Even if it was a proven economic loss to those already here I would still support the concept of freedom of movement…..at least I’m honest enough to explain my position on the subject without having to justify it with spurious data.
Fair enoughSo it leaves the ideological argument, you either don’t like the idea of people coming here and competing for jobs and services..or you don’t mind.
For me the concept of restricting people just because they were lucky/unlucky enough to be born on a particular land mass is a bit strange.
Even if it was a proven economic loss to those already here I would still support the concept of freedom of movement…..at least I’m honest enough to explain my position on the subject without having to justify it with spurious data.
That is really what it comes down to. You will struggle to produce a study that shows that GDP per head is significantly increased by mass migration, because as far as I'm aware any serious research into the issue, either here or in the US, has shown marginal gains at best.
So really it comes down to attitudes to immigration. Given that it impacts the rest of us in two ways. In the cost of living and in the fiscal costs of subsidising a low wage economy I am happy to have major restrictions on low skilled immigration, others will have a different view.
What I find annoying is those who favour immigration as an end in itself and then to justify it loudly proclaim it is an economic panacea which we are too "ignorant" to realise.
JagLover said:
The last report discussed on PH's said that migration from the EU was a net fiscal benefit. Even using the rather questionable assumptions the study used to boost the fiscal benefit it found that migration from outside the EU was a net fiscal cost.
This says nothing about long term fiscal contribution or GDP per head.
I agree with you. This says nothing about long term fiscal contribution or GDP per head.
Did that make you fall off your chair!!!!!!!!!!!
Any study of immigration is complex and likely to need you to make a lot of assumptions.
The long term effects are even more difficult to quantify.
I also agree non EU immigration is likely to be a cost. As you have already posted much of this is due to ECHR decisions.
I disagree with the repeal of the ECHR because its one of the few pieces of legislation which protects us against the power of the executive. But I would agree it needs changing to limit its scope particularly around the concept its developed of family life.
However, my view remains immigration from the EU is likely to be a benefit and is needed considering our aging population. I also support it because its a reciprocal arrangement. I like the fact I can live and work freely across the EU.
I also believe we need to look at EU immigration in context. At the moment its high because a) slow growth in much of the rest of Europe and b) the addition of the A8 countries.
In my view most of the candidate states will not join within 10 years and when they do will have much greater limitation place on freedom of movement.
So:
a) as the A8 countries develop, look at there growth rates many are doing very well because they avoided the euro and did not have sufficient access to capital markets to borrow lots of money,
b) recession in other will end
then immigration will slow.
We may even end up with net migration.
Mrr T said:
I also support it because its a reciprocal arrangement. I like the fact I can live and work freely across the EU.
But you can't really, can you?Most of Europe speaks English, so it is easy to come here and do a non manual gangmaster driven job. A romanian Maths teacher can come over here, train and teach here, as can a Italian or a Greek.
You on the other hand would have to pick a single country, spend 2 years+ getting to a work standard of that countries language. Only then could you even think of training for that job to their rules.
And if you ever wanted to move to another country than the same again.
It is reciprocal merely in name, the reality is that it is much harder for inhabitants of the worlds largest spoken language to move around in countries with smaller languages and do a professional job.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff