Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- From: "Robert Peffers" <peffers50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100
"Ian Smith" <ianinhoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20071017194047.0362b628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:29 GMT
The Highlander <micheil@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of immigration
on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the immigration
minister, said the research showed that ''in the long run, our country
and Exchequer are better off with immigration rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number of
foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the labour
force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this, the
study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign workers – or
£700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as health,
education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive findings were
last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact of
the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states that
''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an
immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing British
people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s in
the country?"
Other reports actually indicate a _net drain_ on the economy, as locals
are displaced from the job market (thus claiming benefits), incomers
also claim benefits, send money out of the country to homeland, housing
shortages causing a "market bubble", etc. Employers are actively
choosing to hire (often non-English speaking) East Europeans over
locals. My employer is one of them. What do locals do if they can't
find an company to hire them? There is a much bigger picture, and
societal issue, than merely how much these foreigners earn and pay tax
on.
It is financial madness to flood the country on an unprecedented scale
with millions of low-skilled immigrants/migrants, while at the same
time pay c.8 million "economically active" locals of working age to
stay at home. Granted, a fair proportion of them are genuinely needy,
but the welfare state is obviously a way of life for far too many.
The answer is get the missing millions back into work (even if it
really hurts for a while), and only after that consider whether to
import _skilled_ labour for filling in the "gaps".
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still has a shortage of skilled workers. Scotland also has lots of migrant workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London Boroughs, with a long standing and permanent unemployment problem, (Source: The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is employed. It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work. In Scotland, just now we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- From: Ian Smith
- Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- References:
- Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- From: The Highlander
- Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- From: Ian Smith
- Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- Prev by Date: Re: The Big Wee Country
- Next by Date: Re: Live Free or Die
- Previous by thread: Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- Next by thread: Re: Migrant workers earn more than British workers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading