Should low-skilled immigration be stopped?

OP

Original post by SHallowvale

If immigrants did consume jobs that would have gone to UK-born people then there should be a strong correlation between net migration and unemployment. There isn't.

If immigrants did consume jobs?? There is an immigrant working in Costa Coffee- they DID consume that job! How did they not consume the job if they have it?! They didn't create the job- they work for Costa Coffee.

Original post by SHallowvale

While data does show that, in the last 17 years, there has been a decrease (of 1.1 million) in the number of UK-born people with low skilled work, there has been an increase (of 2 million) in the number of UK-born people with high skilled work. In addition, despite the rise in the number of migrants in low skilled work there are still way more UK-born people with those jobs.

Basically there has been a net rise in employment for both natives and foreigners. Immigrants have not consumed (taken) jobs.

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26367391
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate
(Pages 12 to 18) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333084/MAC-_Migrants_in_low-skilled_work_Summary_2014.pdf

If a low-skilled immigrant is PAYE employed- they have consumed a job..... you cannot argue this...... ???

Original post by SHallowvale

It has been found that, since 2001, the net fiscal contribution of all immigrants is around £25 billion. In comparison, the net fiscal contribution of UK-born people is -£624 billion. In other words, UK-born people are a burden to public services and society in general; immigrants are not.

Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333084/MAC-_Migrants_in_low-skilled_work_Summary_2014.pdf (Page 37)
http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf (Page 28)

The title of the question is low-skilled immigrants, not all immigrants..... Ten high-skilled immigrants could contribute 10 billion to the economy, whilst the remaining 100,000 low-skilled immigrants could consume 9 billion...... I would rather a 10 billion contribution than 1 billion.

Original post by SHallowvale

I am not convinced that low-skilled immigrants are much of a burden to this country and therefore I am not in favour of stopping them from coming to the UK.

Because you have either completely denied basic common sense (saying a low-skilled immigrant with a job hasn't consumed a job????) or you have talked about immigration and not low-skilled immigration.......

How can low-skilled immigrants (who pay £800 a year in tax) fund the increases in public services due to the demand increase?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 4

Original post by SHallowvale

It has been found that, since 2001, the net fiscal contribution of all immigrants is around £25 billion. In comparison, the net fiscal contribution of UK-born people is -£624 billion. In other words, UK-born people are a burden to public services and society in general; immigrants are not.

Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333084/MAC-_Migrants_in_low-skilled_work_Summary_2014.pdf (Page 37)
http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf (Page 28)

.

This is hugely misleading. Almost the entirety of the economic benefits from immigration come from high skilled immigrants, who are typically European (the Indian community is the only sizeable exception). The problem in the UK is not immigration from the EU, it is low skill immigration from third world non-EU countries like Pakistan/Bangladesh/Somalia, which is a huge drain on the economy. These people typically come to the UK and either do not work, or work in very low wage occupations where their tax payments do not come close to covering the government resources they consume. You can see some figures here: http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml . Some key points:

More specifically, the proportion of people who live in low-income households is:

20% for White people.
30% for Indians and Black Caribbeans.
50% for Black Africans.
60% for Pakistanis.
70% for Bangladeshis.

Also see Figure 2 - 70% of the 'poor people' who live in Inner London are from ethnic minority backgrounds (as are 50% of people in outer London). These are the ones who are responsible for the lack of social housing in the south east, along with the soaring housing benefit bill which is essentially being used to pay African/Pakistani/Bangladeshi families to live in extremely expensive areas of London which the majority of white British people cannot afford.

The figures get worse when you look at fertility rates - people from these backgrounds (Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Black African) have birthrates which are substantially above the UK average. The white British family size is below replacement rate (1.9 children per family) whereas the Pakistani rate is around 3.5 children per family. The main reason for this is because white familes typically cannot afford to have large numbers of children since they have to pay for them, whereas the low-income pakistani community largely subsists in social housing, and private sector housing benefits (i.e. British people essentially pay ethnic minorities to have large families, meaning they cannot afford to have large families themselves)

The birth rate issue means the problem is only going to get worse in future, because the next generation of these people is going to be even larger, and the current evidence suggests most of them will end up either unemployed or in low skill jobs like their parents, since the data shows that they are lacking massively behind white British people in cognitive skills, even before starting school, and that this continues into secondary school where Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Black children get substantially worse exam grades than white people [note that a) Indians and Chinese do better than the native British and b) the above paper shows that the differences are present in 5 year old children even before starting school, so blaming this low achievement on 'racism' would be nonsensical].

There is absolutely no sense in which low skill immigration has been good for the UK, and quoting aggregate immigration figures misses the point. Noone is complaining about immigration from Germany/India/China, everyone knows what the problem countries are even if its not considered polite to point them out, and the data make it perfectly clear.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5

And thats just the economic issues, we havent even got started on crime or the cultural problems yet (and thats from the last 6 months alone!)

Reply 6

(also its worth pointing out that while the media is relentlessly focused on low-skill Eastern European immigrants, these people tend not be substantial drains on the economy since they tend to be young without children, and work in the UK for a few years before leaving. Your average Pole might be in a low wage job, but he isnt claiming £10k/year of child tax credit and housing benefits for a 3 bed flat to house his 2 kids, and he wont get social housing since you essentially now need to either be a single mother or have a large family to get that, unless you want to spend many years on the waiting list)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

SHallowvale

14

Original post by Darkphilosopher

That's not necessarily the case at all. The economy could for example grow and introduce a further 100,000 jobs. If 100k immigrants then come to the country and take those jobs then you would still have the same number of unemployed but at a direct cost to the nationals in terms of potential work.

If that was the case then there would still be a correlation. If the unemployed, working age population stays constant while the total working age population rises then the unemployment rate should fall.

Employment figures show that in the last 17 years UK-born people have been moving from low skilled work into high skilled work, suggesting that less people have been competing for those low skilled jobs. To me it seems more as if immigrants are just doing the work that would not have been done by natives.

Original post by billydisco

If immigrants did consume jobs?? There is an immigrant working in Costa Coffee- they DID consume that job! How did they not consume the job if they have it?! They didn't create the job- they work for Costa Coffee.

If a low-skilled immigrant is PAYE employed- they have consumed a job..... you cannot argue this...... ???

If by ''consume'' you mean ''have a job'' then I don't see what the issue is.

In my reply I took ''consume'' to mean ''took a job that would have gone to a native'' or ''replaced someone who already worked''.

Data doesn't really support either of those ideas.

Original post by Darkphilosopher

The title of the question is low-skilled immigrants, not all immigrants..... Ten high-skilled immigrants could contribute 10 billion to the economy, whilst the remaining 100,000 low-skilled immigrants could consume 9 billion...... I would rather a 10 billion contribution than 1 billion.

Because you have either completely denied basic common sense (saying a low-skilled immigrant with a job hasn't consumed a job????) or you have talked about immigration and not low-skilled immigration.......

How can low-skilled immigrants (who pay £800 a year in tax) fund the increases in public services due to the demand increase?

The reports I quote, and others, found that low-skilled immigrants (specifically) still put more into the country than what they take out.

In addition, since 2001 the immigrants that contributed the most towards the economy were EEA immigrants, having a net contribution of £22 billion. IE, the dirty Eastern European that came here after the 2004 expansion of the EU.

If you have evidence that low-skilled immigrants take more than what they put in then please share it.

Sources:
http://www.oecd.org/migration/the-fiscal-and-economic-impact-of-migration.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-12-105_en.htm?locale=en

Original post by poohat

This is hugely misleading. Almost the entirety of the economic benefits from immigration come from high skilled immigrants, who are typically European (the Indian community is the only sizeable exception). The problem in the UK is not immigration from the EU, it is low skill immigration from third world non-EU countries like Pakistan/Bangladesh/Somalia, which is a huge drain on the economy. These people typically come to the UK and either do not work, or work in very low wage occupations where their tax payments do not come close to covering the government resources they consume. You can see some figures here: http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml . Some key points:

Also see Figure 2 - 70% of the 'poor people' who live in Inner London are from ethnic minority backgrounds (as are 50% of people in outer London). These are the ones who are responsible for the lack of social housing in the south east, along with the soaring housing benefit bill which is essentially being used to pay African/Pakistani/Bangladeshi families to live in extremely expensive areas of London which the majority of white British people cannot afford.

May you please source the stuff in bold? I couldn't find it in the sources that you've provided.

(I have not ignored the rest of your post, i'm going to read into it later)

Reply 8

Its in the poverty.com link above. 70-80% of them live in poverty with a large family, and stay in London. In that situation you receive a very large amount of government support - a 'poor' family with 3 children, a stay at home mother and a father who earns £15k (which is around where 'poverty' start and a typical Pakistani/Bangladeshi situation since the mother almost never works for cultural reasons) gets given around £25k a year in tax free government benefits (which roughly breaks down as £10k in child+working tax credits, £3k in child benefits, and £11k in housing benefits). You can see a more exact break down at http://www.entitledto.co.uk/, or just click here which shows it filled in for the above family

So thats £25k of free money in cash straight away, now throw in the cost of schooling their large families (around £5k per child at a typical state school), health care resources, etc and you are looking at a good £50k of yearly government spending per family easily.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

Rakas21

21

I support broadly reducing low skilled immigration via reducing asylum and vetoing entry of new member states to the EU while poor.

Reply 10

OP

Original post by poohat

The problem in the UK is not immigration from the EU, it is low skill immigration from third world non-EU countries like Pakistan/Bangladesh/Somalia, which is a huge drain on the economy.

Eastern Europe is a bigger problem because we are not allowed to control it. I have been informed non-EU immigration is actually pretty tough.

Reply 11

OP

Original post by poohat

(also its worth pointing out that while the media is relentlessly focused on low-skill Eastern European immigrants, these people tend not be substantial drains on the economy since they tend to be young without children, and work in the UK for a few years before leaving. Your average Pole might be in a low wage job, but he isnt claiming £10k/year of child tax credit and housing benefits for a 3 bed flat to house his 2 kids, and he wont get social housing since you essentially now need to either be a single mother or have a large family to get that, unless you want to spend many years on the waiting list)

500,000 Poles = 500,000 extra people placing demand on housing. It also consumes jobs which we could have used ot reduce the dole queue/bill.

Reply 12

OP

Original post by SHallowvale

If by ''consume'' you mean ''have a job'' then I don't see what the issue is.

In my reply I took ''consume'' to mean ''took a job that would have gone to a native'' or ''replaced someone who already worked''.

Data doesn't really support either of those ideas.

Data?? You need data?? Im banging my head here- this is common sense:

-Low-skilled EU immigrant with Costa Coffee job
-We stop low-skilled immigration
-Only unemployed low-skilled workers in economy are now unemployed British
-Unemployed British person takes the job
-Dole queue decreases by 1, no increased demand on housing/schools etc

I do not see how the above could be disputed?

Reply 13

Original post by billydisco

500,000 Poles = 500,000 extra people placing demand on housing. It also consumes jobs which we could have used ot reduce the dole queue/bill.

There is no such thing as 'consuming jobs', that isnt how the labour market works. As the population of a country rises, the number of jobs also rises because there is more need for extra shops, building work, etc due to the increased number of people. A country with 100 million people has more jobs than a country with 50 million people. The idea that "immigrants take jobs" in a general sense (rather than lowering prices in specific industries) reflects a misunderstanding about economics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Original post by billydisco

Data?? You need data?? Im banging my head here- this is common sense:

-Low-skilled EU immigrant with Costa Coffee job
-We stop low-skilled immigration
-Only unemployed low-skilled workers in economy are now unemployed British
-Unemployed British person takes the job
-Dole queue decreases by 1, no increased demand on housing/schools etc

I do not see how the above could be disputed?

Its not that simple because stopping low skilled immigration decreases the population size, so Costa Coffee gets less customers and hence employs less staff, so there is no longer a job for the British person to take.

Also having fewer low skilled immigrants will reduce the competition for jobs in the retail sector, hence workers can demand more wages, hence prices for goods rise due to increased costs, hence things cost more, hence there is less demand, again resulting in less jobs.

A good example is the building trade. Polish labourers are cheaper to hire than British labourers, so they now make up a lot of the population of low-skill builders. The result is that building work now costs less to do, since when you hire a Polish builder to do something to your house, you can pay them less than you would have paid a British person. Since the work now costs less, some of the British families who previously might not have thought it worthwhile to get some building work carried out will now decide to do it, which increases the supply of work, and hence increases the demand for builders, and so creates jobs.

Basically the labour market (and the supply/demand equilibrium in general) is a lot more complicated than you are making out.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

Original post by Rakas21

I support broadly reducing low skilled immigration via reducing asylum and vetoing entry of new member states to the EU while poor.

A decent amount of current low-skill immigration into the UK is via marriages to existing 'naturalized' immigrants. For example, around 40% of the UK Pakistani community marries one of their first cousins, who often live in Pakistan and gain rights of entry to the UK via marriage. So your proposals wouldnt really reduce this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9714000/9714582.stm

And again EU immigration really isnt a problem despite what the media is telling you. Most Eastern European immigrants come to the UK for a few years to work and then go home, they dont settle down and have large families like non-EU low skilled immigrants do, and that is the bigger problem. Also the majority of Eastern European immigrants are Poles who arent really a problem - they arent a high crime group, they dont underachieve at school, they dont claim large amounts of benefits, they integrate well into UK culture rather than segregating themselves like certain non-EU immigrants do, they respect basic British/liberal values, they arent creating large families who will be dependent on state handouts, and so on. Most of the hostility towards them comes from a basic misunderstanding of economics (the 'theyre taking our jobs' argument).

See the table on page 8 here. The vast majority of Poles in the UK are young males who want to work in order to better their lives, and theyre probably the closest thing the UK has to a model minority after Indians, its crazy to waste time objecting to them when Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Somalian/etc immigration is much worse by pretty much every measurable standard.

To put it as bluntly as possible, the reason why the media is so anti-Polish is because mainstream journalists/politicians are too cowardly to criticise any non-white immigrant groups since this will trigger outrage and racism accusations from SJW left-wingers, so Poles become a proxy for anti-immigrant sentiment in general since they are white and so its ok to criticise them, even though as a group they make a far bigger contribution to UK society than the obvious non-EU groups.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

Marco1

15

Yes it should. All the arguments for low-skilled immigration that I've heard over the years are weak and hollow. They take jobs which would otherwise be available to British people born here, who by birth right, should come first. They indirectly create a nastier, more cutthroat working environment with people prepared to work for less and willing to take on illegitimate cash-in-hand jobs often got through connections within their own cultural community; further family immigration which means further strain on public services; they strain the NHS as low skilled immigrants particularly from the third world nations breed a much higher number of children on average; being both poorly educated and foreign many find it more difficult to assimilate fully into our British way of life therefore add to it's fragmentation.

Reply 16

OP