| Thank God for immigrants on 13:02 - Jul 2 with 775 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:35 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
excellent, we are discussing the criteria for admitting migrants. high skilled, working for the nhs a very definite yes. legitimate refugees under our international obligations a definite yes. low skilled, economically inactive, going into low paid low productivity work, it's a no from me. if we can set out the criteria for allowing migrants we then get a basis for determining numbers.
the thing about the op and the first few replies it that it again tries to frame the immigration debate as nice people who like foreigners and see the value in migrants v. nasty xenophobes who have an irrational dislike of anyone foreign. then the line goes the latter just need to be educated. in reality the debate isn't: migration yes or no, it's how many and what sort.
yes we do have emigrants from the uk - which is why the 3 million in 4 years figure i refereed to was net migration. |
Here's a fact for you though.
The employment rate of the Population aged 16 to 64 has barely changed over the the past fifty years. it sits at around 75% (Office for National /statistics). So if we are getting swamped with unskilled immigrants it appears that they have no significant impact on the numbers and they find employment just as actively as established brits.
In addition they do add to the number of workers and their taxes get to help pay my pension. [Post edited 2 Jul 13:04]
|  | |  |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:12 - Jul 2 with 715 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:02 - Jul 2 by Crawfordsboot |
Here's a fact for you though.
The employment rate of the Population aged 16 to 64 has barely changed over the the past fifty years. it sits at around 75% (Office for National /statistics). So if we are getting swamped with unskilled immigrants it appears that they have no significant impact on the numbers and they find employment just as actively as established brits.
In addition they do add to the number of workers and their taxes get to help pay my pension. [Post edited 2 Jul 13:04]
|
we have 1.4 million foreign nationals between 18 and 64, excluding students, who are economically inactive (also ons statistics). how does that make any sense?
in terms of your final sentence, alas that is out of date and no longer true. prior to brexit migrants were overwhelmingly young, economically active, skilled, qualified and paid as well as uk nationals. they were a net fiscal benefit (taxes paid exceeding any costs to the public purse). that is no longer the case. now on average migrants are lower skilled, a higher proportion are economically inactive, and their wages on average are below those for uk workers. on average they are a now a net fiscal draw (obr statistic). so, by your reasoning, immigration is now making it harder to keep paying your pension. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:31 - Jul 2 with 664 views | Gogs |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:35 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
excellent, we are discussing the criteria for admitting migrants. high skilled, working for the nhs a very definite yes. legitimate refugees under our international obligations a definite yes. low skilled, economically inactive, going into low paid low productivity work, it's a no from me. if we can set out the criteria for allowing migrants we then get a basis for determining numbers.
the thing about the op and the first few replies it that it again tries to frame the immigration debate as nice people who like foreigners and see the value in migrants v. nasty xenophobes who have an irrational dislike of anyone foreign. then the line goes the latter just need to be educated. in reality the debate isn't: migration yes or no, it's how many and what sort.
yes we do have emigrants from the uk - which is why the 3 million in 4 years figure i refereed to was net migration. |
Not wishing to play a game of ‘gotcha’ here but can you define what you mean by ‘low skilled, economically inactive, going into low paid low productivity work’ specifically the low skilled/paid/productivity’ parts please? Economically inactive I understand and agree with, I may or may not agree with the rest of what you say, but to my mind at least there are low skilled and low paid jobs which still need doing and I’m not sure we have a native (if that’s the right word) workforce willing or able to do it, and I don’t know how you square that circle without migrant workers |  | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:34 - Jul 2 with 658 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:12 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
we have 1.4 million foreign nationals between 18 and 64, excluding students, who are economically inactive (also ons statistics). how does that make any sense?
in terms of your final sentence, alas that is out of date and no longer true. prior to brexit migrants were overwhelmingly young, economically active, skilled, qualified and paid as well as uk nationals. they were a net fiscal benefit (taxes paid exceeding any costs to the public purse). that is no longer the case. now on average migrants are lower skilled, a higher proportion are economically inactive, and their wages on average are below those for uk workers. on average they are a now a net fiscal draw (obr statistic). so, by your reasoning, immigration is now making it harder to keep paying your pension. |
I think your logic is flawed. Just because a working immigrant might be lower paid does not make it harder to pay my pension. An extra worker albeit perhaps lower paid still contributes tax and national insurance.
There used to be roughly four working age individuals to every pensioner. There are now approximately three. Workers today need all the help they can get to keep me in the style to which I have grown accustomed. | | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:44 - Jul 2 with 630 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:34 - Jul 2 by Crawfordsboot |
I think your logic is flawed. Just because a working immigrant might be lower paid does not make it harder to pay my pension. An extra worker albeit perhaps lower paid still contributes tax and national insurance.
There used to be roughly four working age individuals to every pensioner. There are now approximately three. Workers today need all the help they can get to keep me in the style to which I have grown accustomed. |
well you need to argue with the obr. they say that on average the cost of services consumed by new migrants exceeds the tax they pay. the net fiscal contribution is negative. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 21:04 - Jul 2 with 549 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:44 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
well you need to argue with the obr. they say that on average the cost of services consumed by new migrants exceeds the tax they pay. the net fiscal contribution is negative. |
that's to be expected in year one but they do not remain "new" immigrants for long do they! [Post edited 2 Jul 21:05]
| | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 21:04 - Jul 2 with 530 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 21:04 - Jul 2 by Crawfordsboot |
that's to be expected in year one but they do not remain "new" immigrants for long do they! [Post edited 2 Jul 21:05]
|
the obr is a life time estimate. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 07:56 - Jul 3 with 451 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Thank God for immigrants on 21:04 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
the obr is a life time estimate. |
I’ll take your word for that but it is a far more nuanced debate than you allow. What age do they arrive, how many years will they work, how healthy are they, what is the economic benefit of them doing a job that a resident Brit might refuse to do, etc. etc.
However, I can see where you’re coming from. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Thank God for immigrants on 10:06 - Jul 3 with 406 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:31 - Jul 2 by Gogs |
Not wishing to play a game of ‘gotcha’ here but can you define what you mean by ‘low skilled, economically inactive, going into low paid low productivity work’ specifically the low skilled/paid/productivity’ parts please? Economically inactive I understand and agree with, I may or may not agree with the rest of what you say, but to my mind at least there are low skilled and low paid jobs which still need doing and I’m not sure we have a native (if that’s the right word) workforce willing or able to do it, and I don’t know how you square that circle without migrant workers |
For info: "native" is the right word, and perfectly acceptable in this context.
Talking about "the natives", not so. |  | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 10:35 - Jul 3 with 388 views | DJR |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:44 - Jul 2 by lowhouseblue |
well you need to argue with the obr. they say that on average the cost of services consumed by new migrants exceeds the tax they pay. the net fiscal contribution is negative. |
Not sure that paragraphs 4.29 to 4.43 of the recent report from the OBR supports what you say.
https://obr.uk/box/the-impact-of-migration-on-the-fiscal-forecast/ |  | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:38 - Jul 3 with 339 views | lowhouseblue |
i think that's a short-term forecast not a life-time assessment (it only goes to 2028/29).
what you need is:
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/FRS-migration-supplementary-forecast-information
chart 4.13 is simplest. what it says is that if a migrant is on an average wage they are positive contributors until a very old age - essentially because they have arrived in their 20s and we haven't spent money on educating them and supporting them through childhood.
a low wage migrant never makes a positive fiscal contribution, and by very old age that amounts to a net cumulative cost of c. £1.5 million a head.
the point is that recent migration has become increasingly skewed towards low skill, low wage and economically inactive migrants (ie we have many more of those on the yellow curve in chart). | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:43 - Jul 3 with 326 views | Herbivore |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:38 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
i think that's a short-term forecast not a life-time assessment (it only goes to 2028/29).
what you need is:
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/FRS-migration-supplementary-forecast-information
chart 4.13 is simplest. what it says is that if a migrant is on an average wage they are positive contributors until a very old age - essentially because they have arrived in their 20s and we haven't spent money on educating them and supporting them through childhood.
a low wage migrant never makes a positive fiscal contribution, and by very old age that amounts to a net cumulative cost of c. £1.5 million a head.
the point is that recent migration has become increasingly skewed towards low skill, low wage and economically inactive migrants (ie we have many more of those on the yellow curve in chart). |
Care work is low paid. Maybe we need to start paying people more. |  |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:07 - Jul 3 with 279 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:43 - Jul 3 by Herbivore |
Care work is low paid. Maybe we need to start paying people more. |
yes again it's a question of what criteria we apply in allowing migrants. if we need them in the care sector then that can be one test. but when we did do that the system was widely abused and then had to be changed - agencies were bringing people and dependents in through the care route but many were never working in the care sector. if wages were higher then perhaps more uk workers would do that work - but if the wages were higher who would pay for that.
my first post in the thread said that we should be determining who brings a benefit to us. that may well include care workers - but it gets nowhere near explaining the 3 million net migrants over a period of 4 years. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:09 - Jul 3 with 282 views | DJR |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:38 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
i think that's a short-term forecast not a life-time assessment (it only goes to 2028/29).
what you need is:
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/FRS-migration-supplementary-forecast-information
chart 4.13 is simplest. what it says is that if a migrant is on an average wage they are positive contributors until a very old age - essentially because they have arrived in their 20s and we haven't spent money on educating them and supporting them through childhood.
a low wage migrant never makes a positive fiscal contribution, and by very old age that amounts to a net cumulative cost of c. £1.5 million a head.
the point is that recent migration has become increasingly skewed towards low skill, low wage and economically inactive migrants (ie we have many more of those on the yellow curve in chart). |
Sorry for the confusion, I posted the wrong link. I had intended to post the following link, which also includes the chart you mention, but goes into much great detail than your link.
https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-september-2024/#chapter-4
The point though is that the post to which I was responding did not mention low wage immigrants.
But I am not sure I fully buy what you say in your last paragraph. If nothing else it seems counter-intuitive given there were no restrictions of unskilled EU immigration pre-Brexit. It also needs to be acknowledged that things have now been tightened considerably in terms of wages and dependents under the post-Brexit regime.
Interestingly, my mother-in-law's carers are all recent immigrants from outside the EU, but they are at the same time also studying things like nursing and medicine, so will presumably go on to be higher earners. That was not something that was the case with my mother's carers who were from eastern Europe and came in under the pre-Brexit regime. [Post edited 3 Jul 12:21]
| | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:02 - Jul 3 with 224 views | WeWereZombies |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:09 - Jul 3 by DJR |
Sorry for the confusion, I posted the wrong link. I had intended to post the following link, which also includes the chart you mention, but goes into much great detail than your link.
https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-september-2024/#chapter-4
The point though is that the post to which I was responding did not mention low wage immigrants.
But I am not sure I fully buy what you say in your last paragraph. If nothing else it seems counter-intuitive given there were no restrictions of unskilled EU immigration pre-Brexit. It also needs to be acknowledged that things have now been tightened considerably in terms of wages and dependents under the post-Brexit regime.
Interestingly, my mother-in-law's carers are all recent immigrants from outside the EU, but they are at the same time also studying things like nursing and medicine, so will presumably go on to be higher earners. That was not something that was the case with my mother's carers who were from eastern Europe and came in under the pre-Brexit regime. [Post edited 3 Jul 12:21]
|
Thanks for that update, although I found the first link revealing too, seven billion pounds in net contribution doesn't seem like small change to me.
Also to be borne in mind, whichever administration comes to power, the simplistic 'stop the boats' approach is unlikely ever to work (because it isn't only boats and even if it was we have a long coastline with lots of traffic and increasing difficulties with over fishing causing people with craft to look elsewhere for revenue.) Plus the levels of migration Worldwide at the moment are probably small compared with what is to come as a result of climate change:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00133-1 |  |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:45 - Jul 3 with 164 views | DJR |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:43 - Jul 3 by Herbivore |
Care work is low paid. Maybe we need to start paying people more. |
Seasonal agricultural workers may also contribute little, if they are here for 6 months but qualify for then entire personal allowance. But their impact on the agricultural economy is immense because without them large sectors wouldn't function, we'd have rotting crops and we'd have to import more. [Post edited 3 Jul 13:46]
| | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:46 - Jul 3 with 164 views | eireblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 11:38 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
i think that's a short-term forecast not a life-time assessment (it only goes to 2028/29).
what you need is:
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/FRS-migration-supplementary-forecast-information
chart 4.13 is simplest. what it says is that if a migrant is on an average wage they are positive contributors until a very old age - essentially because they have arrived in their 20s and we haven't spent money on educating them and supporting them through childhood.
a low wage migrant never makes a positive fiscal contribution, and by very old age that amounts to a net cumulative cost of c. £1.5 million a head.
the point is that recent migration has become increasingly skewed towards low skill, low wage and economically inactive migrants (ie we have many more of those on the yellow curve in chart). |
That chart should compare low wage migrant, to low wage resident.
The issue there is low wages. Not migrant vs resident status. |  | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:49 - Jul 3 with 150 views | DJR |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:02 - Jul 3 by WeWereZombies |
Thanks for that update, although I found the first link revealing too, seven billion pounds in net contribution doesn't seem like small change to me.
Also to be borne in mind, whichever administration comes to power, the simplistic 'stop the boats' approach is unlikely ever to work (because it isn't only boats and even if it was we have a long coastline with lots of traffic and increasing difficulties with over fishing causing people with craft to look elsewhere for revenue.) Plus the levels of migration Worldwide at the moment are probably small compared with what is to come as a result of climate change:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00133-1 |
Yes I was originally going to post both links which explains the confusion in my response. [Post edited 3 Jul 13:51]
| | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:51 - Jul 3 with 136 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:46 - Jul 3 by eireblue |
That chart should compare low wage migrant, to low wage resident.
The issue there is low wages. Not migrant vs resident status. |
the issue is that low wage and non-economically active migrants are a large net draw on public funds over their lifetime. regardless of the fact that some uk residents are unavoidably already a negative net draw on public funds, why would we choose to allow in people who are a large net cost to us? why would uk taxpayers make that choice to subsidise them? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:15 - Jul 3 with 115 views | DJR |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:51 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
the issue is that low wage and non-economically active migrants are a large net draw on public funds over their lifetime. regardless of the fact that some uk residents are unavoidably already a negative net draw on public funds, why would we choose to allow in people who are a large net cost to us? why would uk taxpayers make that choice to subsidise them? |
Your main concern when it comes to immigration appears to be the large amount of net migration since Covid but it is Ironic that many UK taxpayers voted for the government whose policies permitted that
As it is, I am not sure whether you voted for Brexit, but I wonder if you prefer the system we had then as a member of the EU to the system we have now, given that it didn't produce the same levels of net migration as now, and given that, as people came from countries much nearer, there was probably more chance of some of them returning as their country's economy grew, or even going off to other EU states where there was demand for their labour.
In addition, I wonder if you think recent restrictions on immigration go far enough? If not, how would you further restrict it, and which categories of workers would you not let in? [Post edited 3 Jul 14:40]
| | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:29 - Jul 3 with 93 views | Ryorry |
| Thank God for immigrants on 12:09 - Jul 3 by DJR |
Sorry for the confusion, I posted the wrong link. I had intended to post the following link, which also includes the chart you mention, but goes into much great detail than your link.
https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-september-2024/#chapter-4
The point though is that the post to which I was responding did not mention low wage immigrants.
But I am not sure I fully buy what you say in your last paragraph. If nothing else it seems counter-intuitive given there were no restrictions of unskilled EU immigration pre-Brexit. It also needs to be acknowledged that things have now been tightened considerably in terms of wages and dependents under the post-Brexit regime.
Interestingly, my mother-in-law's carers are all recent immigrants from outside the EU, but they are at the same time also studying things like nursing and medicine, so will presumably go on to be higher earners. That was not something that was the case with my mother's carers who were from eastern Europe and came in under the pre-Brexit regime. [Post edited 3 Jul 12:21]
|
Out of interest, is modern slavery factored into any of these stats, or even mentioned in surveys and reports? A very distressing contemporary issue. |  |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:35 - Jul 3 with 78 views | eireblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 13:51 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
the issue is that low wage and non-economically active migrants are a large net draw on public funds over their lifetime. regardless of the fact that some uk residents are unavoidably already a negative net draw on public funds, why would we choose to allow in people who are a large net cost to us? why would uk taxpayers make that choice to subsidise them? |
The issue is low wage work is being subsidised and is a large net draw on public funds.
Why should I subsidise care home bosses pulling in £2 million.
Framing the problem as a migrant problem won’t solve the issue.
If there are no migrants I will still be subsidising care home bosses making 50-120x per hour than the staff they employ.
But to come back you your framing, a U.K. born low wage worker is subsided more than a low wage migrant worker.
Low wages are the issue. | | | |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:52 - Jul 3 with 46 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:35 - Jul 3 by eireblue |
The issue is low wage work is being subsidised and is a large net draw on public funds.
Why should I subsidise care home bosses pulling in £2 million.
Framing the problem as a migrant problem won’t solve the issue.
If there are no migrants I will still be subsidising care home bosses making 50-120x per hour than the staff they employ.
But to come back you your framing, a U.K. born low wage worker is subsided more than a low wage migrant worker.
Low wages are the issue. |
you're not explaining why uk tax payers would choose to admit people who the obr estimates will be a net cost of up to £1.5m over their life time. high skilled workers definitely. workers in the nhs definitely. genuine refugees definitely. but ...
out of interest who is going to pay for the higher wages in the care sector? it's an easy and attractive thing to demand but it comes at a cost - even confiscating the salary of 'care home bosses' won't go very far. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Thank God for immigrants on 15:05 - Jul 3 with 35 views | Ryorry |
| Thank God for immigrants on 14:52 - Jul 3 by lowhouseblue |
you're not explaining why uk tax payers would choose to admit people who the obr estimates will be a net cost of up to £1.5m over their life time. high skilled workers definitely. workers in the nhs definitely. genuine refugees definitely. but ...
out of interest who is going to pay for the higher wages in the care sector? it's an easy and attractive thing to demand but it comes at a cost - even confiscating the salary of 'care home bosses' won't go very far. |
It's not just care *home* bosses that are the problem, but care worker agency bosses.
Friend of mine, retired nurse, had plenty of appalling info about being rushed from household to household without being given the time to give the full help required to each individual, whilst being paid pitiful wages which did *not* include her travelling time between 'patients' - and all this in her own car with, iirc, equally pitiful mileage payments. All that info was endorsed by another care worker. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
