Migration into UK soars
Discussion
JagLover said:
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.
No-one buys goods nowadays just because they're British, so why treat labour the same?
oyster said:
The bit I struggle with is the view many people take that it's ok for people from Bristol to take jobs in London, but it's not ok for people from Bulgaria.
Exactly. The question on the EU front is do you see yourself as an EU citizen of a federalist European superstate. Or a Brit.
oyster said:
No-one buys goods nowadays just because they're British, so why treat labour the same?
Depends on what it is, if meat or apples for example, then I buy British. Why get something that has needlessly been shipped around the world in some chemically maintained state 
superkartracer said:
And there lays the problem...
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
So explain to me why if most EU immigrants are a net benefit to the economy this would increase borrowing?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
The likelihood is without EU immigration we would have higher borrowing.
Why do you suggest most EU immigrants are earning £10k a year?
I know only a few of them and all earn close to or above the national average.
Mrr T said:
So explain to me why if most EU immigrants are a net benefit to the economy this would increase borrowing?
The likelihood is without EU immigration we would have higher borrowing.
Why do you suggest most EU immigrants are earning £10k a year?
I know only a few of them and all earn close to or above the national average.
The studies that come to the conclusion that migration has a net benefit to the economy are quite possibly right. However, let's say for instance that out of 300,000 immigrants, 160,000 make a positive contribution, and 140,000 do not. So overall, we judge that immigration is "a good thing for the economy"The likelihood is without EU immigration we would have higher borrowing.
Why do you suggest most EU immigrants are earning £10k a year?
I know only a few of them and all earn close to or above the national average.
....but think for a minute if we could accept the 160,000 positive contributors, and not the 140,000 negative contributors. Then our economy and financial position would be even better. Leaving the EU does not mean losing the positive effects of immigration from any country. It means having control and selecting the best people from over the whole world. Lots of non EU countries accept immigrants from EU countries.
oyster said:
The bit I struggle with is the view many people take that it's ok for people from Bristol to take jobs in London, but it's not ok for people from Bulgaria.
No-one buys goods nowadays just because they're British, so why treat labour the same?
In a pure capitalist world where everyone is responsible for the welfare of themselves and there is no welfare available such an approach might be feasible.No-one buys goods nowadays just because they're British, so why treat labour the same?
In the current UK all that happens is that we subsidise the earnings of the guy from Bulgaria and pay the benefits of the guy from Bristol and find our own housing costs increased by subsidies we are paying for out of our own tax revenue. On pure economic grounds it is a poor deal before we move into the social sphere.
Yazar said:
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.
You still need reasonable levels of language even to do quite menial jobs. So its not clear every one in the EU can come here.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.
As for you comment about English being the major second language in the EU. This is true but fails to recognise that many European languages are quite closely related so it is likely to be as easy to move from France to Italy as it is to the UK.
One answer is lets improve the language skills in the UK.
Esseesse said:
Digga said:
The problem with immigration restrictions is that it is politicians and government who get to select candidates. Given how piss-poor their respective interventions are in similar roles of education and business support, I really don't like this idea.
Not really disagreeing with you, but for info... In the 1950's in Bedford, we needed people to work in the brick works. I'm not totally sure of the details but I understand that this need was recognised by the mayor here (or perhaps MP?). It was then arranged with authorities in southern Italy (who had/have a lack of work) to offer 5 year work visas in the UK to people there. Is this not how immigration should work?In fact, those decisions were not 'wrong', especially at that time, as we rebuilt the postwar economy, but that was then and this is now - where immigrants are kicking down the door to come and live here. We have a different situation to manage and, to be fair/optimistic, possibly a much better one than at that time.
crankedup said:
Is nobody concerned regarding our creaking infrastructure and services?
No because EU migrants don't really use the NHS much and we have a falling birthrate so the effect on schools is pretty neutral. The "expensive" immigrants are those from the Sub-Continent who ship their families over and have no intention of leaving. Those people eventually need expensive medical care, whereas EU migrants (who largely come here, work and pay taxes, then go home to retire) don't.It's the non-EU immigration that is generally the bigger issue in terms of taking up resources.
Mrr T said:
Yazar said:
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.
You still need reasonable levels of language even to do quite menial jobs. So its not clear every one in the EU can come here.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.
As for you comment about English being the major second language in the EU. This is true but fails to recognize that many European languages are quite closely related so it is likely to be as easy to move from France to Italy as it is to the UK.
One answer is lets improve the language skills in the UK.
A barrier of two years plus just to get to the stage that a uk lawyer can do a french law exam, which may take another year, is not realistic.
Hence why London has one of largest French populations of young workers outside France, whereas the French get our pensioners!!
No coincidence that Canada and Australia are the top destinations for our brain drain.
Edited by Yazar on Thursday 26th February 16:49
Camoradi said:
The studies that come to the conclusion that migration has a net benefit to the economy are quite possibly right. However, let's say for instance that out of 300,000 immigrants, 160,000 make a positive contribution, and 140,000 do not. So overall, we judge that immigration is "a good thing for the economy"
....but think for a minute if we could accept the 160,000 positive contributors, and not the 140,000 negative contributors. Then our economy and financial position would be even better. Leaving the EU does not mean losing the positive effects of immigration from any country. It means having control and selecting the best people from over the whole world. Lots of non EU countries accept immigrants from EU countries.
I am sure this sounded logical when you typed but lets dig a little deeper.....but think for a minute if we could accept the 160,000 positive contributors, and not the 140,000 negative contributors. Then our economy and financial position would be even better. Leaving the EU does not mean losing the positive effects of immigration from any country. It means having control and selecting the best people from over the whole world. Lots of non EU countries accept immigrants from EU countries.
How do you judge economic good? and should it only be judged on economic benefit?
If it was only on economic benefit we would never allow immigration from doctors and nurses. They just look after the sick there is no economic benefit to that its a cost. You might argue they make people better so they can work again. But since most sick people are elderly all they are doing is increasing the time they can draw benefits. Which make the costs even higher.
How about some one who is coming to pick potatoes? His wages maybe low, so his direct contribution maybe small, but with out his labour the potatoes could not be picked and the farmer might grow a different and less profitable crop. The total contribution is therefore much greater.
The fact is the market is the arbitrator of economic good. So based on current falling unemployment rates and job vacancies at 2001 level I suggest the market is speaking.
Mrr T said:
I am sure this sounded logical when you typed but lets dig a little deeper.
How do you judge economic good? and should it only be judged on economic benefit?
If it was only on economic benefit we would never allow immigration from doctors and nurses. They just look after the sick there is no economic benefit to that its a cost. You might argue they make people better so they can work again. But since most sick people are elderly all they are doing is increasing the time they can draw benefits. Which make the costs even higher.
How about some one who is coming to pick potatoes? His wages maybe low, so his direct contribution maybe small, but with out his labour the potatoes could not be picked and the farmer might grow a different and less profitable crop. The total contribution is therefore much greater.
The fact is the market is the arbitrator of economic good. So based on current falling unemployment rates and job vacancies at 2001 level I suggest the market is speaking.
Well first of all health care is a service like any other. Hence the doctor & nurse are accounted for.How do you judge economic good? and should it only be judged on economic benefit?
If it was only on economic benefit we would never allow immigration from doctors and nurses. They just look after the sick there is no economic benefit to that its a cost. You might argue they make people better so they can work again. But since most sick people are elderly all they are doing is increasing the time they can draw benefits. Which make the costs even higher.
How about some one who is coming to pick potatoes? His wages maybe low, so his direct contribution maybe small, but with out his labour the potatoes could not be picked and the farmer might grow a different and less profitable crop. The total contribution is therefore much greater.
The fact is the market is the arbitrator of economic good. So based on current falling unemployment rates and job vacancies at 2001 level I suggest the market is speaking.
Low unemployment says nothing about the need for low skilled labour, that is the "lump of labour fallacy". The question is whether it is adding sufficiently to the economy to counteract the fact that the resources of the economy are being shared by an additional person.
Unskilled labour was still being carried out in the era before mass migration (before 1997).
Bluebarge said:
No because EU migrants don't really use the NHS much and we have a falling birthrate so the effect on schools is pretty neutral. The "expensive" immigrants are those from the Sub-Continent who ship their families over and have no intention of leaving. Those people eventually need expensive medical care, whereas EU migrants (who largely come here, work and pay taxes, then go home to retire) don't.
It's the non-EU immigration that is generally the bigger issue in terms of taking up resources.
They don't use the schools either, they don't live in houses or flats, they don't need Doctors or medicines and the list could go on. The infrastructure cannot cope.It's the non-EU immigration that is generally the bigger issue in terms of taking up resources.
The whole economic policy for most western countries is planned around continuous growth and expansion. In order to sustain the economic growth, you need population growth leading to more people working (and spending). If you take the growth out of the economic projections, things look pretty dire. So to sustain (hopefully) this growth at the rate to meet the targets, we need immigration to bring in more workers. This is why the govt. have no real intention of reducing immigration, but they can't come out and say that because it wouldn't be popular for the general voter.
superkartracer said:
DeanR32 said:
Yazar said:
superkartracer said:
Nissan Skyline R32 GTR In-nit 
That his poor wife has to spend evening in seedy pubs being leered at by drunks to pay for 
The UK is a total mess, we DONT have any money hence having to borrow billions each week to stay afloat, the importation of cheap labour is a desperate move in very desperate times.. it's a shambles.
Where is the value and real wealth creation? the type that will pay this 1.5 trillion we now owe.
I own two BMW's now, and the Nissan. I crashed the one in my profile picture, so now drive a £3k 530i. I bought the Nissan Skyline as a gift to myself when I got my first mortgage on a flat. And I have a £500 BMW project car. I'm renting whilst remedial work is carried out on my flat, but I'm hoping to get the deposit together for a second mortgage. Please don't jump to conclusions, thanks.
I think it was Yazar who asked if I thought immigration and over population is making the house I eventually buy dearer or cheaper. I'd say it makes it dearer. I wouldn't put it all down to immigration. There is a lack of housing being built too. I'm sure there's a few contributing factors to house prices rising. I'd like the market to crash if I'm honest!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff