Question:
Do we need immigration to boost our economy?
Major studies in Canada and the United States have concluded that the
benefit of immigration to the economy as a whole is positive but very small.
The impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head is a small fraction of
1%. In Britain, congestion costs probably wipe that out since we are 12
times as crowded as the United States . It follows that the case for large
scale immigration is a matter for decision on political and social grounds.
Answer:
Economic questions usually divide into short and long term.
In the short term immigration can be like tax and spend. Employers love
black economy labour they often won't pay at all. People like the
government giving them useless jobs with big pensions.
But neither tactic can be indulged in for too long. In the case of
immigration huge numbers have given up on work in the face of low wages
- let alone the social fragmentation. Huge benefits must now be paid to
avoid rioting and complete social breakdown.
And people eventually are deterred by high taxes to pay borrowings.
The short and long term division rarely gets mentioned when the trick
question 'do we need immigrants' is touted.
Another negative factor in the UK is that immigration drives out many of our
more talented people ( i.e. those who can afford to get out ) , tired and
fed up with th influx of low grade beggars and the demise of a once great
england.
Take this into account and I have no doubt that immigration in fact produces
a negative impact on the economy, probably in the order of 10-22 %.
Take this into account and I have no doubt that immigration in fact
produces
a negative impact on the economy, probably in the order of 10-22 %. >
In the long run it can collapse it as the Romans found out. But like
Labour they got hooked on cheap labour.
Importing trained workers saves the UK the training expense. When
supply exceeds demand e.g. IT workers, rates drop, and profits are
boosted.
The world is not short of people, and if social security were abolished
and there was complete freedom of movement, with no minimum wage,
British business would be able to compete on a level playing field.
Likewise people leaving Britain because they are sick of bliar etc, and they
are the people more likely to be trained and above average earners.
And I would hope that you are one of the first to be made redundant. In the
meantime, care to explain HOW people here at present who have a mortgage etc
are going to pay it off if their wages/salary is reduced?
You sound like another stupid moron who just thinks of profits and people as
just another item to be disposed of regardless of their livelihood and
feelings.
Except for the fact that open borders would likely lead to such large
influxes of non-assimilating immigrants so quickly that it would plunge the
whole country it civil war and ethnic conflict - which might kind of affect
business profitability. It would also have a good chance of ending up
abolishing capitalism itself in Britain.
There's a huge difference between importing skilled workers in IT to
fill a shortage and allowing mass immigration of unskilled workers who
take jobs that Joe Chav could otherwise have done. For example, I've
rarely seen a British cleaning person in the last six months or so,
they seem to have almost all been replaced with Eastern Europeans in
that time: do we really, honestly, need to import people from abroad to
clean our offices while the people who used to do it are presumably now
on the dole?
vIndeed. A level playing field where wages would be the same as China.
Now, one way or another the pay for unskilled labour will have to
equalise over the next few years, but it would be better to see Chinese
wages rise to meet ours than ours drop to meet China's. Sure will be
fun paying off that 300k loan on your 'executive apartment' when you're
making $0.50 an hour.
Hmm.if there was complete freedom of movement, I wonder how many
people would still be here?
I am not sure if the Jews would be happy with letting just anyone buy a
house in Israel.
