IMMIGRATION
The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has spoken out in favour of mass immigration: ‘If the increased demand for labour generates its own supply in the form of migrant labour then the link between demand and prices is broken, or at least altered. Indeed, in an economy that can call on unlimited supplies of migrant labour, the concept of the output gap is meaningless’.
The output gap is a measure of how much spare capacity there is in the economy.
Mervyn King continued: ‘The UK is not in that extreme position, but the inflow of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from eastern Europe, has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure in the labour market relative to previous experience’.
In other words, Mr King believes that immigration allows firms to replace British workers with cheaper foreign workers and so save costs on wages. That might be true, but there will be an increase in government spending to pay for those displaced British workers who are unemployed, and the extra costs (eg housing and transport) caused by the immigration.
This increase in government spending will lead to higher taxes. The displacement of British workers will lead to falling living standards for the British. None of this is in the interests of the British.
We do not wish to see a break in the link between demand and prices. If there is a shortage of nurses (ie the demand for nurses exceeds supply), then the pay rates for nurses will increase. The increase in pay will lead to an increase in supply. Many who are currently unemployed, or (possibly forcibly) retired, or on incapacity benefit for depression and stress, will be attracted to take those jobs. This will save government spending on welfare.
There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.
There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.
The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.
It is in the interests of the economy as a whole that mass immigration is brought to an end. That is before taking into account any of the cultural implications.
It is also to be noted that although there are many corporate businessmen (many of whom are socialists) who favour mass immigration, there seems to be no saving of wage costs at boardroom level. There are no Polish or Lithuanian governors of the Bank of England, for example.
But as we know, with socialism some people are more equal than others.
The output gap is a measure of how much spare capacity there is in the economy.
Mervyn King continued: ‘The UK is not in that extreme position, but the inflow of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from eastern Europe, has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure in the labour market relative to previous experience’.
In other words, Mr King believes that immigration allows firms to replace British workers with cheaper foreign workers and so save costs on wages. That might be true, but there will be an increase in government spending to pay for those displaced British workers who are unemployed, and the extra costs (eg housing and transport) caused by the immigration.
This increase in government spending will lead to higher taxes. The displacement of British workers will lead to falling living standards for the British. None of this is in the interests of the British.
We do not wish to see a break in the link between demand and prices. If there is a shortage of nurses (ie the demand for nurses exceeds supply), then the pay rates for nurses will increase. The increase in pay will lead to an increase in supply. Many who are currently unemployed, or (possibly forcibly) retired, or on incapacity benefit for depression and stress, will be attracted to take those jobs. This will save government spending on welfare.
There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.
There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.
The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.
It is in the interests of the economy as a whole that mass immigration is brought to an end. That is before taking into account any of the cultural implications.
It is also to be noted that although there are many corporate businessmen (many of whom are socialists) who favour mass immigration, there seems to be no saving of wage costs at boardroom level. There are no Polish or Lithuanian governors of the Bank of England, for example.
But as we know, with socialism some people are more equal than others.
posted by erc @ 10:32 pm
<< Home