Thanks for research. I don’t think looking at pay is best metric to determine how immigration benefits an economy. Immigration at low salary level depresses prices for goods and services and probably depresses wages. That’s good for consumers - more choice, better prices so your salary goes further and your standard of living improves. Not so good for low wage uk workers having to compete and not so good for everyone with extra burden on public services.
Also the period you look at is affected by Brexit which it seems has depressed uk’s economy by making import and export of goods from our closest neighbours much more difficult and costly.
That GDP per head of population is falling tells you all you need to know. The pie may be getting bigger, but because the number of people sharing it is going up we are all worse off.
Economists may tell us that immigration is a good thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
The ONS (I believe) have published some data and forecasts that show the vast majority of immigrants will be a net drain on the economy. Matt Goodwin has an article (or two) on it in his Substack with links to the publication.
I have read your original post and I cannot see how you think that I have commented on something out of context.
Poor productivity is directly connected to the import of high numbers of low skilled people and the drop in GDP per head is directly connected to that.
Your question as to whether the outcomes would have been different had we not had high unskilled immigration is unknowable and is simply trying to distract from the facts as they are.
Your reaction "you lost me at Matt Goodwin" is childish, so I responded to you as if you were a poor insecure little child.
Your response "I'm not going to read those links now because you've insulted me" is again, childish.
Do you actually want to respond to the data or do you want to confirm your apparent belief that immigration is an unalloyed good because economists say so?
Thanks for research. I don’t think looking at pay is best metric to determine how immigration benefits an economy. Immigration at low salary level depresses prices for goods and services and probably depresses wages. That’s good for consumers - more choice, better prices so your salary goes further and your standard of living improves. Not so good for low wage uk workers having to compete and not so good for everyone with extra burden on public services.
Also the period you look at is affected by Brexit which it seems has depressed uk’s economy by making import and export of goods from our closest neighbours much more difficult and costly.
Superb thank you. Would you be able to produce a shorter version possibly only 2 sides of A4 with the most important points? Best wishes
That GDP per head of population is falling tells you all you need to know. The pie may be getting bigger, but because the number of people sharing it is going up we are all worse off.
Economists may tell us that immigration is a good thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
The ONS (I believe) have published some data and forecasts that show the vast majority of immigrants will be a net drain on the economy. Matt Goodwin has an article (or two) on it in his Substack with links to the publication.
OK. Here is a link to the ONS Report:
https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-september-2024/
Here is a link to a Migration Watch commentary on this report:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
And if you get your emotional support teddy out you might be brave enough to read Matt Goodwin's article on this co-authored with Dr. Jan van de Beek
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/the-economic-case-for-mass-immigration
I have read your original post and I cannot see how you think that I have commented on something out of context.
Poor productivity is directly connected to the import of high numbers of low skilled people and the drop in GDP per head is directly connected to that.
Your question as to whether the outcomes would have been different had we not had high unskilled immigration is unknowable and is simply trying to distract from the facts as they are.
Your reaction "you lost me at Matt Goodwin" is childish, so I responded to you as if you were a poor insecure little child.
Your response "I'm not going to read those links now because you've insulted me" is again, childish.
Do you actually want to respond to the data or do you want to confirm your apparent belief that immigration is an unalloyed good because economists say so?