Considerable nonsense talked about migration by Elena Blackmore on the Common Cause website: http://valuesandframes.org/what-have-the-immigrants-ever-done-for-us/
The economic argument falls apart (as it always does) on examination of the statement "immigration has provided net economic gain for the UK".
Suppose the net economic gain of immigration is £1 billion a year (it's not, this is just an example).
£1 billion sounds good. Spread out evenly that represents £16 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. Who can possibly oppose immigration (on economic grounds) with that sort of bonanza?
Except that the benefits (if there are any) are not shared out equally. Suppose that net economic gain just benefits ten people, giving them windfall fortunes of £100 million each. Suddenly the net economic gain does not look so attractive.
And the costs are not shared out equally either. Employing cheapo migrants is very cheap for bosses, but very expensive for the communities (and it's always the poorest communities) that the migrants crowd into. If you cannot see this Ms Blackmore you are either a liar or a moron (if you will excuse me using such upfront language).
Talk of net economic gain is meaningless.
You need to talk about average economic gain per person. And prove it in models that can be clearly understood, not the impenetrable stats produced technocratic dissemblers such as Jonathan Portes. And then (this is the crucial bit) the economic proof needs to be laid before the electorate and their consent gained before any further immigration takes place.
The economic argument falls apart (as it always does) on examination of the statement "immigration has provided net economic gain for the UK".
Suppose the net economic gain of immigration is £1 billion a year (it's not, this is just an example).
£1 billion sounds good. Spread out evenly that represents £16 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. Who can possibly oppose immigration (on economic grounds) with that sort of bonanza?
Except that the benefits (if there are any) are not shared out equally. Suppose that net economic gain just benefits ten people, giving them windfall fortunes of £100 million each. Suddenly the net economic gain does not look so attractive.
And the costs are not shared out equally either. Employing cheapo migrants is very cheap for bosses, but very expensive for the communities (and it's always the poorest communities) that the migrants crowd into. If you cannot see this Ms Blackmore you are either a liar or a moron (if you will excuse me using such upfront language).
Talk of net economic gain is meaningless.
You need to talk about average economic gain per person. And prove it in models that can be clearly understood, not the impenetrable stats produced technocratic dissemblers such as Jonathan Portes. And then (this is the crucial bit) the economic proof needs to be laid before the electorate and their consent gained before any further immigration takes place.
No comments:
Post a Comment