OECD says immigration pushes wages down

[tbaldwin]

Short of a ten foot wall across the entire length of the British coast, there is fuck all you can do to prevent immigrants getting in.

Thats not exactly a rational arguement is it?
And apart from being obviously untrue,its just pandering to liberal alarmism....that anyone who opposes their rancid views on immigration must probably be a closet racist who secretly wants to lock up or kill all foriegners etc.

 

[In Bloom]

Thats not exactly a rational arguement is it?
And apart from being obviously untrue...

If it's so obviously untrue, why don't you refute it instead of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and hoping the bad man will go away?

its just pandering to liberal alarmism....that anyone who opposes their rancid views on immigration must probably be a closet racist who secretly wants to lock up or kill all foriegners etc.

Yeah, because that's what I said, isn't it?

 

[tbaldwin]

The reality of the situation is that immigration has always existed and will always exist, you can't get rid of it. The laws you propose would only worsen the situation for immigrants, thereby making them an easier target for dodgy gangmasters and people traffickers, as well as assisting the bosses in creating a pool of flexible labour that they can exploit at will.

.

The reality is that economic migration leads to poorer countries losing doctors,engineers,teachers and nurses etc.
It means that those countries become poorer and poorer.
It means that the west takes doctors from countries where there are shortages of doctors...it means people dying unneccesarily in their millions.
Liberals may look at what happened in Morecambe or the lorry in Dover and reach the conclusion that it shows we need to be nicer to immigrants etc etc.
Socialists should look at the whole picture and see what effect internationally migration has.

 

[In Bloom]

The reality is that economic migration leads to poorer countries losing doctors,engineers,teachers and nurses etc.
It means that those countries become poorer and poorer.
It means that the west takes doctors from countries where there are shortages of doctors...it means people dying unneccesarily in their millions.
Liberals may look at what happened in Morecambe or the lorry in Dover and reach the conclusion that it shows we need to be nicer to immigrants etc etc.
Socialists should look at the whole picture and see what effect internationally migration has.

*thumps head against table*

Look, you still haven't explained how we're going to stop this from happening. All you're doing is making feeble appeals to emotion and screaming 'LIBERAL!!!11' at anybody who calls you on it.

 

[tbaldwin]

Short of a ten foot wall across the entire length of the British coast, there is fuck all you can do to prevent immigrants getting in.

Its untrue because practically every country in the world has some form of immigration controls...Immigration is controlled by many things,finance,work permits etc etc

 

[tbaldwin]

*thumps head against table*

Look, you still haven't explained how we're going to stop this from happening. All you're doing is making feeble appeals to emotion and screaming 'LIBERAL!!!11' at anybody who calls you on it.

Mind that table....

I am not arguing that we should stop all immigration. I am saying that immigration should be regulated and controlled. It already is but at times its fairly strictly contolled and at other times it isnt,for various reasons.

The UKs population has risen dramatically since New Labour got in.

 

[In Bloom]

Its untrue because practically every country in the world has some form of immigration controls...Immigration is controlled by many things,finance,work permits etc etc

It's almost as if those controls are in the best interest of capital, rather than the working class...

I didn't say that 'immigration controls' don't exist, I'm criticising the idea that they actually control immigration, as opposed to the social position of immigrants.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No my arguements are primarily Internationalist...Yours are primarilyNationalist.. Check out who it is who continuosly talks about the International consequences.

Actually balders, you're VERY selective in your speechifying about "international consequences".

As soon as anyone mentions the remittance issue, for example, you throw a wobbly.

You're only interested in "international consequences" as far as they support your argument. You certainly appear to have little interest for those who would be victims of your "bar the gates" strategy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Its untrue because practically every country in the world has some form of immigration controls...Immigration is controlled by many things,finance,work permits etc etc

And in most cases those immigration controls aren't efficient, and they're inefficient for different reasons, for example:

Structural reasons like manpower, border size and corruptability.

Political reasons like the need for a pool of labour who aren't as aware of their rights as indigenous labour and are "disposable".

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[dash]

Japan has very little immigration AFAIK, despite it being a wealthy country in a region with some fairly poor neighbours eg the Philippines.

The main reason they don't have much immigration is probably because they don't want much. They'd prefer to have robots looking after their old people than foreigners.

 

[tbaldwin]

Actually balders, you're VERY selective in your speechifying about "international consequences".

As soon as anyone mentions the remittance issue, for example, you throw a wobbly.

You're only interested in "international consequences" as far as they support your argument. You certainly appear to have little interest for those who would be victims of your "bar the gates" strategy.

What are you wittering on about now? remittance issue?

Another truly pathetic post VP.....What exactly are you trying to argue about this time?

 

[Epicurus]

May be irrelevant now but someone asked me the difference between an immigrant and a migrant.

It isn’t my difference it is the British Governments use of the terms that is important, from what I understand from all the stuff I get sent they see migrants as anyone who comes to the UK to work and they can come as a right (i.e. don’t need a visa) the vast majority of these to come to the UK over the last 5 years or so have come from Europe, but this group also includes many from the old colonies who have a right via their parents or grandparents (again without the need for a visa). In some cases they include in these figures people who come on a short term working visa, but not all the time that is why when you look at Government figures it is really important to fully understand how the figures are made up and what groups are included.

Immigrants are the same as above but they do need a visa and don’t have an automatic right of entry

Asylum seekers are a different group all together and don’t fall into either above group, but will count on the immigration figures if and only if they are granted leave to remain.

 

[durruti02]

As opposed to your innuendo laden 'free market' jibes?

The reality of the situation is that immigration has always existed and will always exist, you can't get rid of it. The laws you propose would only worsen the situation for immigrants, thereby making them an easier target for dodgy gangmasters and people traffickers, as well as assisting the bosses in creating a pool of flexible labour that they can exploit at will.

Short of a ten foot wall across the entire length of the British coast, there is fuck all you can do to prevent immigrants getting in.

IB you misunderstand what immigration is historically which is suprising for someone who calls themself a socialist

immigration has always existed as a reality of inequality and class rule. it is NOT a natural phenomena like sun and rain but relates to control over resources .. those who have none are forced to move .. as socialists we are against this economic compulsion and instead seek a world where we have free movemnet based on choice NOT economics ..

talk of a 10 ft wall is also wrong.

have you no understanding of supply and demand?

immigrants only come here cos of the thatcherite neo liberal system we have in place .. the race to the bottom in wages .. cos we have become a nation of daily mail reading cowboy employers who will recruit those who will work for the lowest wage ...

they come cos they know they will get work EVEN though we have 1 million offically and probably 3 million unofficially out of work

you cut the demand i.e. we the workers /unions /left, force HnS and employmnet laws force the bosses to pay the rate/recruit locally/ etc

and supply is cut .. it is not hard this .. no walls no guns no barbed wire just a working class solution

do you understand this IB?

 

[Groucho]

You could execute the unemployed either in addition to kicking them immigrants out or instead of. That might create a labour supply problem thus pushing wages up for a while.
Or we could seek to unite the working class against low pay and unemployment.

 

[durruti02]

You can't have a campaign against immigration without campaigning against immigrants. You are playing into the hands of the bosses, the Daily Mail and worse.

Working class unity is what is needed to end low pay, not divisions based on whose ancestors were born on this island earliest.

of course we want workers unity .. but we do NOT have it .. amd one of the key resons we will NOT get it with your position is when immigrants are so clearly being USED to attack trade unions and cut wages

it is fundamnetal that we acknowledge this

i DO accept the dangers in attacking immigration leading to attacks on immigrants .. however the cat is long out of the bag the horse has long bolted .. we do though of course need to combine out prop as always with anti racism in theory and practcie

your call for unity is empty and has no meaning .. until you and the other ostriches understand this we will be left with a left that is totally estranged from the w/c with the consequnces that that class will continue its move rightwrds to the UKIP and BNP and N9S

 

[Groucho]

of course we want workers unity .. but we do NOT have it .. amd one of the key resons we will NOT get it with your position is when immigrants are so clearly being USED to attack trade unions and cut wages

it is fundamnetal that we acknowledge this

i DO accept the dangers in attacking immigration leading to attacks on immigrants however the cat is long out of the bag the horse has long bolted .. we do though of course need to combine out prop as always with anti racism in theory and practcie

your call for unity is empty and has no meaning .. until you and the other ostriches understand this we will be left with a left that is totally estranged from the w/c with the consequnces that that class will continue its move rightwrds to the UKIP and BNP and N9S

Low pay is the fault of bosses paying low wages.

Instead you want to turn people's anger against immigrants. (No, you can't campaign against immigration without opposing immigrants) There's plenty doing that job. Politicians, The Mail, The Express, The Sun, the BNP, many local papers, the local bigot in the pub. It doesn't improve conditions, it plays into the bosses hands. If the left did as you say and joined the right in a massive anti-immigration campaign the real forces oposed to immigration would take off big time. You wouldn't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

It is not even true that halting immigration would increase wages, not would it end unemployment.

But I guess your anti-immigrant obsession will just continue and you'll continue to get frustrated that the left won't listen. If you want a receptive audience try the Daily Mail message boards! Or write to the Telergraph.

 

[durruti02]

1) No, I do not accept that immigration is having a significant effect on wage levels, but I do accept that some wage levels are being affected in certain areas of the economy. Mainly the black economy as it happens.

2) Yes, I do accept that employers can use immigration as a tool, although I doubt that it is systematic at present.

3) The general consensus is that the function of immigration in 2006 is to fill skill gaps in the UK economy.

The general turn of the UK economy today and for the foreseeable future is to find it's niche in the world market by developing a highly technical, highly skilled workforce based on information. Wage levels are and will reflect that level of skill required.

well i am astonished that a socialist could write what you have written against all the evidence ,though not suprised. my only explanation could be that you are based up north(??) and i in the cowboys overheated south.

1)you are being very nieve here. i have given you evidence re the public sector manuals, others have spoke of construction and building and others of cleaning and agriculture. it is across many sectors and is significant. TBH if it was not, it would not be happenning. little england does not want foreigners here unless the put money in his pocket.

2) this i find frankly very strange that a socialist can suggest that an economic phenomena is NOT systemic .. are you suggestting that somehow immigration is OUTSIDE of the dominant economic system??? this makes no sense at all especially in terms of marxism

3) there is NO general consensus as you state. this is the lie that is being used to justify the process that is clearly unpopular with the vast majority. ( and you know that There are some skill shortages in the overheating south but the solution to this is surely training our youth! No? and also for what are these projects .. usually bullshit vanity and PFI bullshit .. not what we need or want ...

most immigration is being used in unskilled areas sadly often by people who are very skilled and in their homke countries are desperately missed.

immigration is simply being used to save on training ..

your last paragraph is the capitalist dream ... and it relies on a compliant low wage work force ..

 

[durruti02]

You can't have a campaign against immigration without campaigning against immigrants.

groucho do you campaign

against low wages??? so do you campaign against low wage earners?

or against cheap labour?? so do you campaign against cheap labourers?

or against sweat shops ?so do you campaign against sweat shop workers?

etc etc etc

 

[audiotech]

well i am astonished that a socialist could write what you have written against all the evidence ,though not suprised. my only explanation could be that you are based up north(??) and i in the cowboys overheated south.

1)you are being very nieve here. i have given you evidence re the public sector manuals, others have spoke of construction and building and others of cleaning and agriculture. it is across many sectors and is significant. TBH if it was not, it would not be happenning. little england does not want foreigners here unless the put money in his pocket.

2) this i find frankly very strange that a socialist can suggest that an economic phenomena is NOT systemic .. are you suggestting that somehow immigration is OUTSIDE of the dominant economic system??? this makes no sense at all especially in terms of marxism

3) there is NO general consensus as you state. this is the lie that is being used to justify the process that is clearly unpopular with the vast majority. ( and you know that There are some skill shortages in the overheating south but the solution to this is surely training our youth! No? and also for what are these projects .. usually bullshit vanity and PFI bullshit .. not what we need or want ...

most immigration is being used in unskilled areas sadly often by people who are very skilled and in their homke countries are desperately missed.

immigration is simply being used to save on training ..

your last paragraph is the capitalist dream ... and it relies on a compliant low wage work force ..

Evidence? The only "evidence" you have ever put forward to back up your ultra-left nonsense has been from the Daily Mail, Migration Watch and from that hand-wringing liberal Polly Toynbee.

The reality is that migration has pushed the growth of average earnings down.

As for "training"? I see Gordon Brown has commissioned a report on the subject. The targets from the finalised report are for 95% of adults to achieve basic literacy and numeracy by 2020, raising the number of adults with the equivalent of five good GCSE's to more than 90%, doubling the number of apprenticeships to 500,000 and adding 1.9 million people to those with the equivalent of three A levels. Also, to have at least 40% of the adult population educated to degree level. Companies will also be expected to make arrangements to train employees to the equivalent of 5 GCSE's - with a legal option if they fail to carry out this training voluntary. For the long-term there is proposed action to have all young people in H/E up to the age of 18. Claimants will also be offered skills training.

 

[tbaldwin]

Low pay is the fault of bosses paying low wages.

Instead you want to turn people's anger against immigrants. .

One positive thing about this debate is that lots of people now realise how much people like you have totally missed the point.

The truth is you cant be an interntionalist or a socialist without looking at the catastrophic consequences of supporting economic migration.

 

[durruti02]

groucho do you campaign

against low wages??? so do you campaign against low wage earners?

or against cheap labour?? so do you campaign against cheap labourers?

or against sweat shops ?so do you campaign against sweat shop workers?

etc etc etc

groucho ?

 

[durruti02]

Originally Posted by durruti02 to MC5
well i am astonished that a socialist could write what you have written against all the evidence ,though not suprised. my only explanation could be that you are based up north(??) and i in the cowboys overheated south.

1)you are being very nieve here. i have given you evidence re the public sector manuals, others have spoke of construction and building and others of cleaning and agriculture. it is across many sectors and is significant. TBH if it was not, it would not be happenning. little england does not want foreigners here unless the put money in his pocket.

2) this i find frankly very strange that a socialist can suggest that an economic phenomena is NOT systemic .. are you suggestting that somehow immigration is OUTSIDE of the dominant economic system??? this makes no sense at all especially in terms of marxism

3) there is NO general consensus as you state. this is the lie that is being used to justify the process that is clearly unpopular with the vast majority. ( and you know that There are some skill shortages in the overheating south but the solution to this is surely training our youth! No? and also for what are these projects .. usually bullshit vanity and PFI bullshit .. not what we need or want ...

most immigration is being used in unskilled areas sadly often by people who are very skilled and in their homke countries are desperately missed.

immigration is simply being used to save on training ..

your last paragraph is the capitalist dream ... and it relies on a compliant low wage work force ..



reply from MC5
Evidence? The only "evidence" you have ever put forward to back up your ultra-left nonsense has been from the Daily Mail, Migration Watch and from that hand-wringing liberal Polly Toynbee.

The reality is that migration has pushed the GROWTH of average earnings down.

Durruti02 no the evidence MC is on the street and in the workplaces, that clearly are foreign to you ( i wonder where you live /work?? ) and in the countless CBI/IOD/Economist articles/stats boasting of how recent EU immigration has kept down wages

you keep on ( deliberately??) misses the point over wage growth .. MC we agree that wages ACROSS THE BOARD have grown .. ok ..we agree

what you miss is that an across the board growth HIDES variations at each end , DISGUISES growth in same areas and falls in other areas ... there have been LARGE increases for suits ... and this has hidden that wages are IN FACT FALLING at the bottom end

do you see this? do you deny this?

 

[audiotech]

Well, the latest government figures in the three months to October indicate that take-home pay was up 4.1% on the same period a year earlier, compared to to a 3.9% annual increase in the three months ending in September.

As for "suits"? Yes there are anomaly's like the latest City bonuses to consider in the figures, but even with these stripped out, the trend for wage rates is still upward.

 

[tbaldwin]

Well, the latest government figures in the three months to October indicate that take-home pay was up 4.1% on the same period a year earlier, compared to to a 3.9% annual increase in the three months ending in September.

As for "suits"? Yes there are anomaly's like the latest City bonuses to consider in the figures, but even with these stripped out, the trend for wage rates is still upward.

Immigration contributes to the economic growth in the UK. Its in the interests of lots of wealthy people in the UK. Obvioulsy for people competing for Jobs and housing its not so good..But for people with money it is.
The effct it has on countries who lose skilled workers is very different though.

 

[durruti02]

Well, the latest government figures in the three months to October indicate that take-home pay was up 4.1% on the same period a year earlier, compared to to a 3.9% annual increase in the three months ending in September.

As for "suits"? Yes there are anomaly's like the latest City bonuses to consider in the figures, but even with these stripped out, the trend for wage rates is still upward.

FFS MC you are being a KNUCKLEHEAD!!

how many times have i got you to try to understand that you are qouting AVERAGE figures/stats that MASK variations and the fact that low wage earners in cleaning/public sector are seeing wages going DOWN .. NOT wage growth reduction but either below inflation increases ( which is accepted as going down) OR actually going down being cut as for many cash in hand jobs

please will you try to understand this CRITICAL aspect of the debate ..

 

[audiotech]

FFS MC you are being a KNUCKLEHEAD!!

how many times have i got you to try to understand that you are qouting AVERAGE figures/stats that MASK variations and the fact that low wage earners in cleaning/public sector are seeing wages going DOWN .. NOT wage growth reduction but either below inflation increases ( which is accepted as going down) OR actually going down being cut as for many cash in hand jobs

please will you try to understand this CRITICAL aspect of the debate ..

Just a point my statistician friend, those figures were not averages and btw where are your figures?

 

[treelover]

absolutely ridiculous, just the sort of narrow thinking we should expect from the
fundamentalist left, so no debate on mass immigration in SWP world, heh, what a strange world you live in.

Plenty on Guardian CIF though.

No, you can't campaign against immigration without opposing immigrants

 

[audiotech]

Immigration contributes to the economic growth in the UK. Its in the interests of lots of wealthy people in the UK. Obvioulsy for people competing for Jobs and housing its not so good..But for people with money it is.
The effct it has on countries who lose skilled workers is very different though.

This economic growth could create more taxes and investment for housebuilding and the creation of jobs though.

 

[tbaldwin]

This economic growth could create more taxes and investment for housebuilding and the creation of jobs though.

Yeah fine if your into the National Interest MC5......But im not...I'm an Internationalist and i also believe in class politics which is why i am firmly against free market policies on migartion that suit richer individuals and richer countries.

 

[Epicurus]

Yeah fine if your into the National Interest MC5......But im not...I'm an Internationalist and i also believe in class politics which is why i am firmly against free market policies on migartion that suit richer individuals and richer countries.

Are you against individuals from the developing world taking their skills to the developed world to improve their life and the lives of their dependents and extended family?

Didn’t you argue on a different thread that they shouldn’t do that?