Just like the '80s, only different

RobYourBuilder

David McWilliams wrote a decent article in last weekends edition of the SBP explaining why mass immigration is bad for lower level Irish workers and why the far right is rising in Western Europe.

European industry has taken the brunt of the competitive pain associated with the emergence of China. It is the average blue-collar worker who has suffered because he is in the direct line of fire. His job is on the line.

In contrast, the protected professional middle classes have benefited from China, because they get cheaper smartphones without their jobs or wages being threatened by workers in Shenzhen.

Now consider what happens when all this undermining of the average local worker happens at the same time as mass immigration.

Immigration affects different parts of society differently. For wealthy people, immigration means cheaper workers. Immigration is a win-win option for the rich. In contrast, for poorer people, immigration means direct competition for jobs, for houses, for welfare, for schools, for hospitals, for transport and ultimately for a stake in their society.

So it is not surprising that, all over Europe, we hear representatives of big business argue for more immigration. It makes sense for them to do so: they get cheaper workers.

When the local white population try to argue that they are getting squeezed by immigrants or their kids can’t get work because the immigrants are getting the jobs because immigrants are prepared to work longer hours, they are slapped down and labelled racist.

But what if the local white people are just trying to protect their own interest? Isn’t that what everyone does?

Sometimes, the people who attack the poorer white indigenous population for being racists are protected behind some university department or other (paid for by the taxes of the working poor) and have access to radio producers or editorial pages in the media.

My point is that opinion-makers are not threatened by immigrants, so they would prefer the United Colours of Benetton approach to society rather than the more gritty and realistic notion that if some people gain, sometimes, other people lose out.

Now consider when economic growth stops – as it has done in Europe. The cake stops getting bigger and starts to get smaller. The local population, which was worried about its place when there were opportunities, suddenly finds itself in an existential struggle. But who exactly are poorer people struggling with? Not the guys at the top, but the guys with them closer to the bottom.

The protected political class (wedded to 1980s’ thinking) don’t see that on the ground, immigration, competition and inequality have made people nervous and rudderless.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2015/01/12/just-like-the-80s-only-different

I think he's bang on the money. In a nutshell: "Immigration is bad for lower level workers and good for bosses and landlords." It's good that a respected commentator is coming out with this. Most tow the "immigration is wonderful with few downsides" narratives.

The Moldy Gowl

But what if immigration brings in skilled workers??

kneemos

They probably create as many jobs as they take up.

RobYourBuilder

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

But what if immigration brings in skilled workers??

That's good. Look at some of the multinationals. Some would barely be able to operate without multilingual and highly educated foreigners. He's not saying all immigration is bad. He's saying immigration of lowly skilled people is bad for the native working class as it puts them in direct competition for resources, jobs, school places, welfare, community funding, etc.

stevedublin

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

But what if immigration brings in skilled workers??

That would be bad for skilled /"higher-level" workers in the country they are entering (but good for employers)

ScumLord

Immigrants don't go to a country to take jobs off the local people. They go to a country because there are typically loads of excess jobs and the local population can't fill them all.

I don't think immigrants are to blame. Low paid jobs are going the way of the dodo, eventually China will become more and more automated as they progress and they won't have any low paid jobs either. It's just a side effect of the modern world.

kneemos

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

. He's saying immigration of lowly skilled people is bad for the native working class as it puts them in direct competition for resources, jobs, school places, welfare, community funding, etc.

He's missing the point.It doesn't put them in competition for jobs and resources,it means competition for these has increased.
Anyway as I say immigrants create jobs and have a very low unemployment rate,chances are the immigrant is paying for the respurces of the native Irish.

Banjo String

Dude enough with the threads FFS ........

RobYourBuilder

kneemos wrote: »

Anyway as I say immigrants create jobs and have a very low unemployment rate,chances are the immigrant is paying for the respurces of the native Irish.

Can you cite sources that back up these claims?

kneemos

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Can you cite sources that back up these claims?

Nope.

jimgoose

Sand to the Arabs, coals to Newcastle surely, importing uneducated drones who don't speak English? It's not like we don't grow enough of them here.

RobYourBuilder

Banjo String wrote: »

Dude enough with the threads FFS ........

Click on my username, scroll five down, click on it. When it asks if you're sure you want to add RobYourBuilder to your ignore list, click yes. Sorted. Now you won't have to read them.

Bootros Bootros

kneemos wrote: »

He's missing the point.It doesn't put them in competition for jobs and resources,it means competition for these has increased.
Anyway as I say immigrants create jobs and have a very low unemployment rate,chances are the immigrant is paying for the respurces of the native Irish.

We would hope people immigrate to work. The idea that immigrants create jobs is true but it might not be enough to compensate for lower incomes.

kneemos

Immigrants are also needed to dilute our homogeneous population and as most of them are young we also need them to pay our pensions.

MadsL

I'm very surprised at David McWilliams on this, most economists agree that net immigration is beneficial for countries economies.

Kermit.de.frog

There is one thing he does not mention in his article which he should and that is that generally middle class areas don't get much if any immigration on a meaningful scale. That is why it does not bother that part of society as much. However the assumption in the article is that the immigrants will remain the poorer section of society. Eventually immigrants will move up the ladder and start moving in to middle class areas. Wait until you see policies suddenly harden then. It's ok only so long as it is the poorer areas that take the consequences.

RobYourBuilder

kneemos wrote: »

Immigrants are also needed to dilute our homogeneous population and as most of them are young we also need them to pay our pensions.

It's like playing open borders bingo here. Just out of interest, what's wrong with our homogeneous population?

jimgoose

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

It's like playing open borders bingo here. Just out of interest, what's wrong with our homogeneous population?

I'm too Norwegian. I buck-leap around in shorts and T-shirt at 7am in January. That's just fcukan weird, chief.

Galwayguy35

He has a point, I've noticed that even college educated immigrants go for the lower paid manual jobs for some reason.

kneemos

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

It's like playing open borders bingo here. Just out of interest, what's wrong with our homogeneous population?

It's insular and unhealthy.
Variety is always more interesting.

jimgoose

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

He has a point, I've noticed that even college educated immigrants go for the lower paid manual jobs for some reason.

They're the only jobs that exist for grads, regardless of seed, breed or creed. I wonder why that is? Pesky immigrants!

kenlawlor

I have to applaud David on this article. He has expressed this problem very eloquently. Its much more of an issue in the UK than it is here in Ireland, so we're less used to thinking about it.

RobYourBuilder

kneemos wrote: »

Nope.

Ok.

You claimed that immigrants are less likely to be on welfare. Depends on the group and the country.

EU wide:

Non-EU citizens aged 20-64 were in 2013 twice as likely (21.3%) to be unemployed in one of the EU's 28 member states compared to "nationals" (10.0%), new data from the EU's statistics office Eurostat shows.

The data also revealed that the employment rate was 56.1% for non-EU citizens, compared with 68.9% for citizens of the reporting country.

But large differences can be found within member states.

In Sweden, which has the biggest gap, the employment rate for non-EU citizens was 50.2% compared with 81.3% for nationals (-31.1 percentage points), followed by Belgium (-28.8), the Netherlands (-26.8), France (-22.0), Finland (-20.5) and Germany (-20.2).

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

Ireland:

The figures revealed in a recent European Commission report on the impact of unemployed migrants on social welfare budgets suggest that “benefit tourism” is not a substantial issue in the European Union, but indicate that Ireland is a conspicuous exception to this finding in a number of areas.

As of Mar 2012, there were 62,652 European Union nationals receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance here, although this may account for both contributory and non-contributory recipients due to the manner in which data is held by the Central Statistics Office.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/eu-citizens-enjoy-very-generous-welfare-here-247744.html

Employment rates were also lower among Black African and Ethnic Minority EU individuals, 38 per cent and 51 per cent respectively compared to an average employment rate of 61 per cent for the sample population.

http://www.esri.ie/news_events/latest_press_releases/ethnicity-and-nationality/index.xml

kneemos

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Ok.

You claimed that immigrants are less likely to be on welfare. Depends on the group and the country.

EU wide:



http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

Ireland:



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/eu-citizens-enjoy-very-generous-welfare-here-247744.html



http://www.esri.ie/news_events/latest_press_releases/ethnicity-and-nationality/index.xml

So they're not taking our jobs.

hfallada

Has David McWillams every written an article without a long winded story at the start? Europes problems are far greater than China has taken over jobs.The US lost millions of well paid jobs to China and has done incredible well in the few years. The US also has massive immigration and has done well for itself again. Unlike Germany and France, the US tends to have immigrants from everywhere. They have are more likely to integrate into society, than the massive amounts of a single nationality moving to one country, like Turks in Germany. Mass immigration from one country causes problems.

The Chinese in Ireland are a success story. They are hard working people and have caused minimal social issues. They have the lowest unemployment rate of any nationality here and have help turned serious ****ty streets in Dublin, into half decent areas. Eg Capel St, Parnell St. They didnt need tax breaks or any Government support to do it.

David McWillams has failed to acknowledge that in the 80s, unemployment rates didnt change for 15 years. In the last few years unemployment is down by nearly 5%. Which is incredible considering we still have a non-functioning banking system. Ireland did so well in the boom, as people that left in the 1980s returned with skills they learnt abroad. They used those new skills in Ireland and created the success that was Ireland

Banjo String

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Click on my username, scroll five down, click on it. When it asks if you're sure you want to add RobYourBuilder to your ignore list, click yes. Sorted. Now you won't have to read them.

No you have completely took me up wrong, I don't want to put you on ignore, but you've started three equally exciting threads in a few hours.!!!

Give my brain time to let all your fascinating data sink in FFS.

RDM_83 again

MadsL wrote: »

I'm very surprised at David McWilliams on this, most economists agree that net immigration is beneficial for countries economies.

Yes but its bad for specific groups which is his point, it doesn't really matter to Joe Soap if the economy is in better shape in general if his take home income is reduced and job competition is harder.
There is an argument that its all self interest really, if you work in STEM, Management or IT immigration is going to be a positive for you, at the lowest end of the "indigenous" population its going to be a slight negative, and for previous immigrants its going to be an even bigger negative. (at least thats what UK stats say)

pharmaton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg

Improves thread

Bootros Bootros

MadsL wrote: »

I'm very surprised at David McWilliams on this, most economists agree that net immigration is beneficial for countries economies.

Economics isn't a science however The law of the equilibrium wage says exactly the opposite. Well it says wages won't benefit.

Bootros Bootros

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yes but its bad for specific groups which is his point, it doesn't really matter to Joe Soap if the economy is in better shape in general if his take home income is reduced and job competition is harder.
There is an argument that its all self interest really, if you work in STEM, Management or IT immigration is going to be a positive for you, at the lowest end of the "indigenous" population its going to be a slight negative, and for previous immigrants its going to be an even bigger negative. (at least thats what UK stats say)

Exactly right. I'll post more on this later when off my phone.

Bootros Bootros

As RDM_83 pointed out there are losers and winners in immigration.

Winners.

Owners of capital, employers and ( to a smaller extent) highly skilled private skilled labour and protected work- ie public sector and private cartels. Like law.

Losers.

Everybody else. Most people. Including previous immigrants if they are not in the winners category.

Falsehood.

Good for pensions.

Reality.

That's just a Ponzi scheme. Immigrants also age. They also have to be cared for.

Falsehood

Jobs locals won't do.

Reality

Jobs locals won't do at that price. After all who used to do the work? It can't be that wages for locals are increasing because they wouldn't be so pissed off if that were the case. Same with the NHS and immigration. We're told that the NHS depends on immigration; however you would get enough british born nurses to man the NHS at higher prices

Semi-Falsehood.

It's good for the economy.

Reality

It can be but population growth overall and the economic growth which that entails isn't the same as per-capita economic growth and certainly not wage growth

crockholm

Tricky subject,though I agree with McWilliams.

It is a hot topic in the Construction industry in Sweden at the minute.Talking to Polish lads it is clear that many of them see that there is no viable future in their country in the long term,many feel that the government do not adequately address their concerns,so they come to Sweden and the other Nordic countries to seek out a better Life for themselves and their families.

Trouble is,that the large influx has been disasterous for the native Construction workers.The years of hard struggle to get builders pay and conditions to a high level whereby they can own their own houses and go on foreign holidays are being currently erroded at an alarming rate.The previous Conservative (hmmmm.) government dismantled the blue-collar Construction industry,there are no signs that the Social democratic-Green government are keen on re-instating the previous model as of yet.

RobYourBuilder

MadsL wrote: »

I'm very surprised at David McWilliams on this, most economists agree that net immigration is beneficial for countries economies.

McWilliams was always sceptical about Irelands immigration policies. In his book, The Generation Game(2007), he proposed that we pool all our labour shortages from across the diaspora.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=8ub4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT215&lpg=PT215&dq=mcwilliams+immigration+diaspora&source=bl&ots=jEYPmI314S&sig=mfJ9lauB621T-BXx6h5M9R_Mzdo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8SC6VJeUE6KL7AbHooGwCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCQ

Grayson

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

McWilliams was always sceptical about Irelands immigration policies. In his book, The Generation Game(2007), he proposed that we pool all our labour shortages from across the diaspora.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=8ub4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT215&lpg=PT215&dq=mcwilliams+immigration+diaspora&source=bl&ots=jEYPmI314S&sig=mfJ9lauB621T-BXx6h5M9R_Mzdo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8SC6VJeUE6KL7AbHooGwCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCQ

listen, we know you hate immigrants. You don't like foreigners or muslims, we get it. Do we really need another thread where you bang on about it and keep throwing up random statistics, just to have them disproved, only for you to post up another set. Can't you just resurrect an old thread that we can ignore?

The simple fact is that Ireland's unemployment rate is now lower than it was in the 80's when there were no emigrants here. The vast majority of emigrants have no intention of heading home, they love working here and they do contribute to our society. I've known many that have taken Irish citizenship and the reason the rest don't is because it's not worth the hassle when they already have an EU passport. Many have worked and lived here for 10 or 15 years. They've paid loads in taxes and social welfare. And studies across the EU have shown that migrants are always net contributors to the state rather than net beneficiaries.
You don't care about that though, you just care about what accent they have.

RobYourBuilder

You don't like foreigners or muslims, we get it. 

This is a smear.

keep throwing up random statistics, just to have them disproved, only for you to post up another set. 

This is a lie.

And studies across the EU have shown that migrants are always net contributors to the state rather than net beneficiaries. 

This is untrue.

No such studies were conducted in Ireland, so I'll use the UK;

Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years, a new report has shown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

As I said to other chap;

Click on my username, scroll five down, click on it. When it asks if you're sure you want to add RobYourBuilder to your ignore list, click yes. Sorted. Now you won't have to read them.

MRnotlob606

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

But what if immigration brings in skilled workers??

Then Native skilled workers will be have to compete. It goes both ways.

mikemac1

European industry has taken the brunt of the competitive pain associated with the emergence of China. It is the average blue-collar worker who has suffered because he is in the direct line of fire. His job is on the line.

In contrast, the protected professional middle classes have benefited from China, because they get cheaper smartphones without their jobs or wages being threatened by workers in Shenzhen.

If you work in banking a fair chance your back office job is going to India

AIB are shedding jobs and giving work to Wipro and while they have a base in Shannon it's an Indian company. Lots of other examples to be found

kneemos

Without immigration we'd probably price ourselves out of the market and be totally uncompetitive.