Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[TeeJay]

Teejay always asks for evidence for things that are obvious - most other people don't get his point either.

A long time ago on this thread I provided hard numbers that showed immigration into the UK hasn't impacted on employment or wages, and in fact has boosted the economy.

Repeating something endlessly and never providing any evidence doesn't make it "obvious" or any more true, yet this seems to be precisely the line of reasoning of tbaldwin.

 

[exosculate]

A long time ago on this thread I provided hard numbers that showed immigration into the UK hasn't impacted on employment or wages, and in fact has boosted the economy.

Repeating something endlessly and never providing any evidence doesn't make it "obvious" or any more true, yet this seems to be precisely the line of reasoning of tbaldwin.

The idea that increasing available staff for available jobs can do anything other than depress wages is so elementary an idea that to bother discussing it is ridiculous. It is the most basic of supply and demand economics.

Why else do governments wish to see such flows of labour?

 

[ViolentPanda]

A long time ago on this thread I provided hard numbers that showed immigration into the UK hasn't impacted on employment or wages, and in fact has boosted the economy.

Repeating something endlessly and never providing any evidence doesn't make it "obvious" or any more true, yet this seems to be precisely the line of reasoning of tbaldwin.

Reasoning?

tbaldwin?

 

[TeeJay]

The idea that increasing available staff for available jobs can do anything other than depress wages is so elementary an idea that to bother discussing it is ridiculous. It is the most basic of supply and demand economics.

Then you will have no problems whatsoever finding evidence of this "theory" happneing in reality then will you?

There are also other economic theories that are supposed to happen, but for one reason or another don't actually happen in reality.

Even your understanding of "elementary" economic theory seems to be missing various factors: just to mention a few: That the number of available jobs is not a static 'lump'; That businesses will often assess if something is viable based on the ease and cost of hiring various people and will locate accordingly; That if a threshold is reached they may well emply a whole load of other people - not necessarily in a linear manner; That there is a 'compound' effect within a dynamic economy - that some jobs snowball and generate other jobs; That a dynamic economy produces more revenues for public spending that in turn employs more people, who in turn spend more money in the highstreet and so on; That both compnaies competeing for business and people competeing for jobs is something that increasingly happens internationally (whether people and companies actually relocate or not) rending issues of immigration slightly moot...

Feel free to actually produce some hard evidence showing that immigration has lowered wages (or harmed the economy, therefore reducing public spending) in the UK or other countries with high immigration.

Feel free to show sucessful models of economies that hae cracked down on immigration and where wages have been maintained in this manner.

Feel free to to show how immgrants have had any siginificant impact on the housing market, house prices or housing in general.

Theory is all well and good - we could spout off theory at each other all day, but the acid test is producing some evidence of what has happened and is happening in reality. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

 

[exosculate]

Then you will have no problems whatsoever finding evidence of this "theory" happneing in reality then will you?

There are also other economic theories that are supposed to happen, but for one reason or another don't actually happen in reality.

Even your understanding of "elementary" economic theory seems to be missing various factors: just to mention a few: That the number of available jobs is not a static 'lump'; That businesses will often assess if something is viable based on the ease and cost of hiring various people and will locate accordingly; That if a threshold is reached they may well emply a whole load of other people - not necessarily in a linear manner; That there is a 'compound' effect within a dynamic economy - that some jobs snowball and generate other jobs; That a dynamic economy produces more revenues for public spending that in turn employs more people, who in turn spend more money in the highstreet and so on; That both compnaies competeing for business and people competeing for jobs is something that increasingly happens internationally (whether people and companies actually relocate or not) rending issues of immigration slightly moot...

Feel free to actually produce some hard evidence showing that immigration has lowered wages (or harmed the economy, therefore reducing public spending) in the UK or other countries with high immigration.

Feel free to show sucessful models of economies that hae cracked down on immigration and where wages have been maintained in this manner.

Feel free to to show how immgrants have had any siginificant impact on the housing market, house prices or housing in general.

Theory is all well and good - we could spout off theory at each other all day, but the acid test is producing some evidence of what has happened and is happening in reality. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

So the increase in immigration is to allow wages to rise then?

 

[TeeJay]

So the increase in immigration is to allow wages to rise then?

What happens to wages in an economy where all the businesses relocate overseas or which is not very dynamic? What happens to public sector wages and public spending when the economy does badly? Has a lack of immigration to Japan - for example - led to wages going up since 1990?

Like I said, we could argue the toss about neoclassical "theory" and 101 undergraduate economics all day: surely you will have no problem whatsoever finding some solid evidence of the impact of immigration to the UK (and elsewhere) on wages?

 

[exosculate]

What happens to wages in an economy where all the businesses relocate overseas or which is not very dynamic? What happens to public sector wages and public spending when the economy does badly? Has a lack of immigration to Japan - for example - led to wages going up since 1990?

Like I said, we could argue the toss about neoclassical "theory" and 101 undergraduate economics all day: surely you will have no problem whatsoever finding some solid evidence of the impact of immigration to the UK (and elsewhere) on wages?

Surely you will have no problem finding information to the contrary then?

 

[TeeJay]

Surely you will have no problem finding information to the contrary then?

No problem.

Migration fears - Myths and reality

Are immigrants bad for the economy? That depends on who you are

THERE are three big worries about the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. First, migrants steal jobs. Second, they lower wages. Third, they are benefit-scroungers, generating a net burden on taxpayers. How justified are such fears?

The first is a myth. The accusation that migrants steal jobs is a version of the “lump of labour” fallacy—that there is only so much work to go around. But in a flexible economy the labour market adjusts to an increase in the supply of workers and more jobs are generated.

Research by Christian Dustmann, an economist at University College London, finds no evidence that previous migration flows in the 1980s and 1990s have taken jobs away from the existing population. What's more, today's labour market, with unemployment at a 28-year low and over half a million vacancies, is much tighter than in either of those periods.

Mr Dustmann's research also suggests that wages among existing workers have not been materially affected by immigrants; if anything they have risen...

...The third worry—that migrants are benefit-scroungers—is another myth. The vast majority come here to better their lot in the workplace. Unemployment rates among immigrants—except the Chinese or Indians—are higher than among people born in Britain, but this probably reflects difficulties in finding a job, such as poor language skills. Among those in work, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than people born in Britain.

Nor are they a net burden on the taxpayer, according to a Home Office study which calculated that in 1999 existing migrants contributed £2.5 billion ($4 billion) more in taxes than they received in benefits and services like health and education. The NRC report, by contrast, suggests that immigration into America initially results in a net cost to the taxpayer partly because of the expense of educating immigrants' children. But in the longer term, it calculated that immigration will generate a substantial budgetary gain...

source: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2460645

Re: the "Research by Christian Dustmann, an economist at University College London": The local labour market effects of immigration in the UK (nb .pdf document)

page 46: "According to the most robust estimate, an increase in immigration amounting to one per cent of the non-immigrant population would lead to just under a two per cent increase in average non-immigrant wages."

Now, how about you back up what you have been claiming?

 

[TeeJay]

Here's another study that says much the same thing:

Migration is 'good for everybody'

Migrants can bring many benefits to both the countries they move to and the ones they leave behind, according to a major new study. The International Organization for Migration looked at the costs, benefits and disadvantages of global migration. It found that common concerns about the negative effects of migration on jobs and welfare costs are often unfounded. The IOM says there are up to 192 million migrants and many bring a wide range of economic and other benefits.

Reciprocity

"We are living in an increasingly globalised world that can no longer depend on domestic labour markets alone. This is a reality that has to be managed," said Brunson McKinley, head of the IOM. "If managed properly, migration can bring more benefits than costs." The IOM cites a British report showing that, between 1999 and 2000, migrants in the UK contributed $4bn (£2.1bn) more in taxes than they received in benefits. Migrants also make a significant contribution to the economies of their home states, the report says, with returning cash flows sometimes exceeding official development aid.

Filling spaces

Rather from taking jobs from local workers, the report says that migrants tend to fill spaces at the poles of the labour market - working both in low-skilled, high-risk jobs and highly skilled, well-paid employment. "There's very little evidence in many of the Western countries that are receiving migrants that migrants are substituting the local workforce," the report's editor, Irena Omelaniuk, added.

And migrant workers sent back more than $100bn (£55bn) to their countries of origin in 2004. In fact, the report estimates that more than double this figure may also be sent through informal channels. Morocco, the report says, received $2.87bn (£1.57bn), or 8% of its GDP, from money sent home by migrant workers in 2002 and remittances sent to the Philippines accounted for almost 10% of its GDP. The report says that, although many skilled workers abandon their home countries seeking higher pay abroad, many can be encouraged to return home bringing acquired skills and experience - a process of "brain gain". "Trends suggest a greater movement towards circular migration, with substantial benefits to both home and host societies," the report says...

Source

Full report: WORLD MIGRATION Costs and benefits of international migration 2005 (nb .pdf file)

 

[exosculate]

Teejay - you are supplying info from pro neo liberal sources. Very unconvincing. Especially in the case of The Economist. Laughable.

I want evidence of how wages are improved, how housing provision is improved. Etc etc. When there is a major increase in immigration. Real things affecting real people on the ground - from independent sources - not vague 'the economy is better' type claptrap from strongly ideologically biased sources. You have nothing.

 

[TeeJay]

Teejay - you are supplying info from pro neo liberal sources. Very unconvincing. Especially in the case of The Economist. Laughable.

The first research quoted was done by an academic at UCL. The second was undertaken by the International Organization for Migration and was reported by the BBC.

I want evidence of how wages are improved, how housing provision is improved.

I have provided two links to studies after you challenged me to provide evidence.

You are the one who has produced nothing back up *your* claims.

It is also ironic that you are protesting about the Economist yet a few posts ago you were going on about "supply and demand" and basic economic theory.

 

[TeeJay]

Here's another paper done by an academic on behalf of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): http://www.unece.org/ead/sem/sem2002/papers/Brucker.pdf

Maybe you might even read this one before denouncing it. I don't get the impression that you even looked at the previous two studies.

 

[exosculate]

You just don't get what i am saying

The first research quoted was done by an academic at UCL. The second was undertaken by the International Organization for Migration and was reported by the BBC.I have provided two links to studies after you challenged me to provide evidence.

Done for whom, with what agenda.


You are the one who has produced nothing back up *your* claims.

You are not explaining anything with this meaningless agenda driven vague on the questions I asked you rubbish.

It is also ironic that you are protesting about the Economist yet a few posts ago you were going on about "supply and demand" and basic economic theory.

How is that ironic?

 

[TeeJay]

You are saying nothing.

Start producing some evidence about how immigration to the UK has depressed wages and caused housing shortages, and I will debate it with you.

At the moment you are waffling.

 

[exosculate]

You are saying nothing.

Start producing some evidence about how immigration to the UK has depressed wages and caused housing shortages, and I will debate it with you.

At the moment you are waffling.

And you are doing nothing but produce neo liberal propaganda.

Think Gate Gourmet

The Irish ferry workers

etc etc

There are loads of examples.

The counter argument evidence is clear.

 

[TeeJay]

And you are doing nothing but produce neo liberal propaganda.

I didn't produce these academic studies into the impact of immigration on wages. I'd be happy to look at any studies that show the opposite - but you haven't referenced any yet.

Maybe you'd like to explain exactly how Gate Gourmet or the Irish ferry workers shows how immigration into the UK has depressed wages overall or led to a shortage of housing.

By the way, have you even looked at any of the three studies that I have referred you to? I really can't see how you can claim they are neo liberal propaganda - all three of them are agnostic on neo liberalism and do consider various views on all sorts of issues.

If you had actually bothered reading them you would probably be quoting bits back at me already.

Maybe I should wait a week or so to give you a chance to have a look at them and think about things?

 

[exosculate]

I didn't produce these academic studies into the impact of immigration on wages. I'd be happy to look at any studies that show the opposite - but you haven't referenced any yet.

Maybe you'd like to explain exactly how Gate Gourmet or the Irish ferry workers shows how immigration into the UK has depressed wages overall or led to a shortage of housing.

By the way, have you even looked at any of the three studies that I have referred you to? I really can't see how you can claim they are neo liberal propaganda - all three of them are agnostic on neo liberalism and do consider various views on all sorts of issues.

If you had actually bothered reading them you would probably be quoting bits back at me already.

Maybe I should wait a week or so to give you a chance to have a look at them and think about things?

Sorry you are too stupid to debate with.

 

[TeeJay]

Sorry you are too stupid to debate with.

Then you should produce some evidence for all the other people reading this thread.

 

[exosculate]

Then you should produce some evidence for all the other people reading this thread.

You have produced nothing yourself other than ideologically spun propaganda.

And if you don't get the gate gourmet issue - you really are bloody stupid.

In terms of housing - ask your local authority what percentage on the waiting list are immigrants.

Ask them whether the supply of Council housing is reducing.

Draw your own conclusions.

Its no good having economic growth that doesn't translate into improved services.

 

[TeeJay]

You have produced nothing yourself other than ideologically spun propaganda.

You haven't even looked at the studies that I have referenced have you?

None of them are ideologicially motivated at all, and the sole basis of your comment seems to be that one of them was cited by The Economist.

In fact they are all academic studies that do not have any kind of pre-existing ideological point to prove and all of them are agnostic on this point: they are merely trying to measure what the impacts of immigration have been on labour markets, wages and various other issues.

And if you don't get the gate gourmet issue - you really are bloody stupid.

Maybe I am bloody stupid, but you haven't even managed to (or bothered) to explain how Gate Gourmet shows any general link between immigration levels and wages in the UK, which makes you even more bloody stupid, or bloody lazy, or both in fact.

In terms of housing - ask your local authority what percentage on the waiting list are immigrants.

Ask them whether the supply of Council housing is reducing.

Draw your own conclusions.

I am asking you to produce some evidence. You answer is to tell me to contact my local council.

Draw my own conclusions? My conclusion is that you are full of hot air and haven't got any evidence to back up your claims. I doubt you are going to prove me wrong but I will look at anything you post up here and have a think about it. At this rate I am going to have to take pity on you and go and find some counter-evidence for you. There is this ratyher wonderfuyl internet tool I have found called "Google". It really is rather useful - why not try it sometime?

 

[exosculate]

You haven't even looked at the studies that I have referenced have you?

None of them are ideologicially motivated at all, and the sole basis of your comment seems to be that one of them was cited by The Economist.

In fact they are all academic studies that do not have any kind of pre-existing ideological point to prove and all of them are agnostic on this point: they are merely trying to measure what the impacts of immigration have been on labour markets, wages and various other issues.
Maybe I am bloody stupid, but you haven't even managed to (or bothered) to explain how Gate Gourmet shows any general link between immigration levels and wages in the UK, which makes you even more bloody stupid, or bloody lazy, or both in fact.
I am asking you to produce some evidence. You answer is to tell me to contact my local council.

Draw my own conclusions? My conclusion is that you are full of hot air and haven't got any evidence to back up your claims. I doubt you are going to prove me wrong but I will look at anything you post up here and have a think about it. At this rate I am going to have to take pity on you and go and find some counter-evidence for you. There is this ratyher wonderfuyl internet tool I have found called "Google". It really is rather useful - why not try it sometime?

How do you know what I have read - you pompous cretin!

You are posting ideologically biased nonsense up.

The housing example is to show, if you could be bothered, that what i am saying is correct. The fact that there appears to be no research on this - shows to me that the powers that be would rather such research is not done because it would show things that go against their neo-liberal agenda.

You believe that articles in the economist are not ideologically biased? You are being absurd.

You are posting stuff suggesting immigrants improve growth.

I G Farben produced growth at Auschwitz - that does not make concentration camps alright.

 

[durruti02]

Then you should produce some evidence for all the other people reading this thread.

tj not suprisingly there is little research that isn't sponsered by neo liberals ..

but the point that you always fail to miss is that YES it may well be right that an whole economy will benefit from thatcherite neo liberal wage cutting policies .. BUT it still remains a fact that major parts of the w/c and there communities are adversly affected .. can i prove this with a UN/EU report or such like ?? no .. but just simply use your eyes mate

 

[durruti02]

Just to direct people to a new thread on the Bolkestein directive .. classic neo liberalism which will depend on immigration .. in FULL effect!

and p.s. if this does not prove the title of this thread then i don't know what!!

 

[durruti02]

was looking at a look to Socialist Worker re the Irish Ferries dispute .. and they were noting the importance of the Bolkestein Directive .. does this mean the SWP is going to acknowledge that currently immigration/immigrants is/are being used by neo-liberalism .. in contradiction to the line their members took on this thread early on????

 

[ViolentPanda]

was looking at a look to Socialist Worker re the Irish Ferries dispute .. and they were noting the importance of the Bolkestein Directive .. does this mean the SWP is going to acknowledge that currently immigration/immigrants is/are being us by neo-liberalism .. in contradiction to the line their members took on this thread early on????

That's a very cruel question.

Now the SWP crew are going to have to go into even more ideological contortions to justify themselves.

Nice one!

 

[exosculate]

That's a very cruel question.

Now the SWP crew are going to have to go into even more ideological contortions to justify themselves.

Nice one!

Who cares what the SWP think - they are irrelevant!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who cares what the SWP think - they are irrelevant!

I certainly don't!

The thought of them tripping over themselves trying to justfy their contradictory ideological positions just amuses me, that's all.

 

[tbaldwin]

tj not suprisingly there is little research that isn't sponsered by neo liberals ..

but the point that you always fail to miss is that YES it may well be right that an whole economy will benefit from thatcherite neo liberal wage cutting policies .. BUT it still remains a fact that major parts of the w/c and there communities are adversly affected .. can i prove this with a UN/EU report or such like ?? no .. but just simply use your eyes mate

Important points. Some of the "evidence" that people like teejay are taken in by is fucking shite. How can he believe the shit about needing immigrants to pay for pensions???????

 

[durruti02]

I was hoping tj would come back on this but no luck so far .. it is amazing that the liberals from the refugee council to the anl all line up with the cbi etc when it comes to immigration .. TJ can you really not see the effect capitalist controled immigration has on the w/c and w/c communities??

 

[durruti02]

calling TJ .. come in TJ