Oh God, you’re one of those.
Reality-based people? Yes I am.
I’m sorry to have fallen short of the high standard you set in your first post in this thread. Nevertheless, the idea that immigration is a major cause of the many real economic and social problems facing the people of the UK just doesn’t hold up.
What I said:
(I’ve resisted the temptation to edit the typo.)
What the paper you cited as evidence that immigration had affected wages said:
During that 1992-2014 period, the share of immigration rose by 6.6 percentage points from 6.9% to 13.5%. That equates to a -1.3% impact on unskilled/semi-skilled wages over 23 years, or a compound annual growth rate of -0.06%. (NB - wages as a whole haven’t fallen by -0.06% over the past 20 years, but have stagnated.) During the same period we’ve had the 2008 crash, capital investment has dried up, productivity growth has stalled, zero-hour wages have become the norm for semi-skilled/unskilled labour and unions have become progressively weaker - Tory class war/austerity, as you say. The slow wage growth for semi-skilled/unskilled labour over this period is much more driven by the effects of weak regulation which encourages failure to invest in skilled jobs. With respect to EU immigration particularly, the paper cited in your link goes on to show that the higher share of EU immigrants within the immigrant workforce, the lower the impact on wages.
Immigration is not the big problem. To the extent that it is a problem, EU immigration is not the problem. Cutting EU immigration will not solve the problem.
Further, to your point that it is particularly the white British working class who suffer from immigration, the cite you gave says:
There’s an elitist, media-fuelled conspiracy to convince working class voters that their problems are caused by immigrants and not by domestic policy that favours the interests of big business ahead of workers. It’s been so successful that millions of these voters (but not all of them) have been led to vote to put their local economies at risk in pursuit of an empty fantasy. They’ve been duped, they’re going to get screwed and the communities they want to protect are going to ripped even further apart.
On the impact of Brexit on Leave voting areas, this blogillustrates the findings of a paper looking at regional share of trade with the EU. Basically, areas with a higher leave vote do more trade with the EU, and have a higher share of wages generated by trade with the EU. This trade is going to slow down, and for some businesses, stop entirely as their purchasers find alternative suppliers that aren’t burdened by tariffs, customs or increased regulation. Our trade with the mighty nation of New Zealand is unlikely to fill this gap.
Sorry to triple post, but I’ve just seen this really interesting blogon the relationship between immigration, austerity and Leave votes. The final point on perceptions of the effect of immigration on the NHS is really interesting.
Essentially, NHS spending needs to increase as a share of GDP over time (because, e.g. of the increasingly older population). The government fails to meet this need, while swearing blind that NHS spending is being protected in real terms. This ignores the fact that standing still means falling behind. But people can see the unprecedented pressure the NHS is under (e.g. c. 20 trusts declaring themselves unable to provide life-saving emergency care, cancer operations being cancelled etc.) and, believing their government, reach for an explanation. As can be seen from the chart in the blog: 55% of people thing immigration is bad for the NHS, compared to only 19% who think it’s bad for them personally or 24% who think it’s bad for the area where they live. The Leave campaign, of course, put a lot of emphasis not jsut on the NHS vs the EU (£350M a week) but also on immigration and NHS - e.g. the ad with the poor granny who couldn’t see a doctor because the waiting room was crowded with foreign types.
The other point the blog makes is that as well as post 2008 austerity we have to factor in years of general neglect of non-London/South East regions by Westminster, a policy dating back to Thatcher and continued (certainly as far as trying to ensure high-wage jobs existed outside the big cities) by Labour and then Cameron. All of which is a rancid disgrace, none of which will be improved by Brexit.
It’s funny how the politics in another country can be so similar to one’s own. Now I’m curious what might qualify as the British version of Kansas. That is, extremely Eurosceptic, working class, full of unpretentious “average” or “real” Britons, and most likely to suffer the ill effects of their own vote. You mentioned East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire earlier, do those qualify? I don’t know if the UK has the same “heartland” cultural trope that America does, so maybe it doesn’t quite translate.
What utter nonsense; everyone knows social care is blcoking beds - that’s everyone who pays council tax and/or pays attention to the news because of the 2% precept. It’s not a situation the public - even the stupid country folk who voted Leave - is unaware of.
Out of interest, why do you think the 4 hour waiting tie for A5E had to go - too many grannies waiting for cancer treatments, perhaps, or why waiting times are shooting up:
As above, working people in particular are hit by the holy union of austerity and increased demand for NHS patient services - what could ‘increased demand’ be code for …:
Well, it’s either the fit and healthy young immigrants who come over here to work manual labour, or the increasing number of old people who are blocking beds due to the shortages in social care that everyone knows about. Which do you think?
Old people get sick more than young people: Cancer, cardio-vascular disease, Alzheimer’s, falls, influenza, pneumonia, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis… these are all severe medical conditions for which a major risk factor is turning 60. And when old people get sick, they take longer to recover and need more care, because they’re old and that’s how the human body works. After a certain point, indeed, you don’t recover to full health and need constant ongoing medical care, in and out of hospital.
This is basic health economics. It’s really well understood and not remotely controversial. Britain has a large and growing number of old people. Therefore, there is “increased demand” for health services. There is no code, there’s a bunch of old people we need to look after, and our government won’t spend the money to do so.
Yes of course you’re right. The ONS’s 3.5 million east Europeans don’t call on the NHS at all. And certainly not for childbirth, post-natal care and then schooling.
3.5 million East Europeans of working age. 11 million people aged 65+.
More people. Worse health problems. Longer recovery times. More dependence on failing social care.
Which of these, in your view, is driving increased demand in the NHS?
But again, there’s a bigger underlying point. Whatever the cause of the demand, the question isn’t “which group is getting sick?” (Spoiler - it’s the old people). The question is, “Why aren’t the government paying for it?”
The same con as the Tea Party and Trump movements in America. Corporate, low tax, interest groups masquerading as Working Class Heroes. Good gracious.
In the US, large cities (maybe not all?) have always had an “immigration section” ("Chinatown"s are a very special case, and are excluded form this post).
In SF, that is “The Mission”* - you can still find Irish bakeries, and I even spotted red hair there once.
That is now Hispanic - just the latest group.
Is this a unique-to-America thing? Has Europe been so fixed that a large group of immigrants is rationally viewed as a threat to existing order?
-
- the cheap prices are now attracting condo towers. Yes, it got ugly.
A frightened population is a malleable population.
Sadly, about every third generation has to discover this all over again.
London: Distribution: Commentary
Most of whom are paying for the NHS (via taxation).
Most of whom aren’t anymore.
It’s also worth noting that immigrants make up a sizable proportion of the NHS itself: 26% of doctors and 11% of all staff are immigrants, with non-UK EU nationals making up 10% of doctors and 4% of nurses. While India and the Philippines are the largest contributors of medical staff,
Immigrants aren’t destroying the NHS; they’re keeping it going. There’s a shortage of British medical staff at the moment, and when EU nationals make up 10% of the doctors but only 5% of the population, without them coming to the UK to work in the NHS the waiting times would be a helluva lot longer.
using “destroy” you sound hysterical so it’s difficult to take your point seriously. Putting aside the drama, you must realise the rank stupidity of that argument. Here’s a clue:
One thing I find people often fail to realize is how cheap/underfunded the NHS is. Not just compared to the massive drunken-sailor party that is US healthcare spending, which is where the comparisons often show up.
But also compared to other European healthcare systems, such as France, or Germany. I know people who work for the NHS who work themselves to the bone for very little reward. It seems to me that the NHS primarily rely on these people who treat it as a calling more than a job.
So blaming immigrants is really pointless, when the system in question is so severely underfunded anyway, its on the brink of going dysfunctional.
So, you know. Fund it properly first, then see if there is an undue strain.
Whereas what prevents me from taking your points seriously is the complete lack of serious points in your posts.
Aaaand how exactly does that demonstrate the “rank stupidity” of my argument? I eagerly await your usual insightful analysis.
Anyone who has experienced the healthcare systems in France and Germany will know it’s almost miraculous what 3% additional GDP can achieve.
I don’t know anyone who “blames” people wanting to do better for themselves and their families - this seems like more liberal hysteria. The issue with immigration is control i.e. of borders, and not giving control to Mrs Merkel and, by extension, to what suits the German economy at this point in time.
In relation to the 27, there is currently no control that cannot come first from Berlin. Shades of the ERM.
When did NHS start being in charge of schools?