New Migration Watch Report About Economic Aspects of UK Immigration

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

This idea is as fictional as the British Summer.

[Pielstick]

Less than a page and we're getting "facist" and "racist" thrown around already.

Standard tactics of the left then.


@Ferrets: The author of the UCL report has links to a pro-immigration pressure group. I linked this. So to call out Migration Watch as biased yet hold up the UCL report as the paragon of academic objectivity is a rather severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. It would appear you can lead a horse (or ferret?) to water....

As per usual you are engaging in the rather puerile approach of declaring "your" source as being superior and superceding all others... just because you say it does. You are not the sole arbiter of the validity of a source.

However, feel free to explain how the statistics in the Migration Watch study are incorrect or have been misrepresented.


@Mongrel: Again, if you can't see how having an open border to nearly 500 million people, many of whom are from countries with significantly lower wages and living standards to the UK creates a very large pool of low paid labour which in turn contributes to wage compression, then again I don't really know how I can explain it to you. Maybe I should take out a two page ad in the Guardian or something?

What's more, I find your comments about pensioners rather curious. Given your pechant for single handedly hunting down and purging all wacist sentiment from the Mudpit, I can only imagine the steam that would issue forth from your righteous and just ears if I were to write things such as:

I don't see why I should provide for their immigrants' TV licence, fuel bills and quite literally a free ride

or

We can stop old people immigrants from sucking on Britannia's golden tits.

So immigrants are not fair game, but old people are? That is a ing whopping great big double standard you've got right there pal.

As I wrote above, I am perfectly happy for my tax to support British pensioners who have worked and paid into the system. They are my kith and kin. they raised and supported me and now it's my turn, indeed my responsibility to support them in their old age. It is not my responsibility to support economic migrants who have just got off the boat.


Finally, @Justicar: The link I posted is from a "fascist source" and I am a "conspiracy nutter"? Sweet Jesus, I've been rumbled. Your acute observational skills and command of logic and reason have overwhelmed me. What's more, thanks to your insightful analysis I have seen the error of my ways. I'm just off out now to burn an effigy of Mrs Thatcher and I shall be joining the SWP and UAF post haste.

[mongrel]

@Mongrel: Again, if you can't see how having an open border to nearly 500 million people, many of whom are from countries with significantly lower wages and living standards to the UK creates a very large pool of low paid labour which in turn contributes to wage compression, then again I don't really know how I can explain it to you. Maybe I should take out a two page ad in the Guardian or something?.

Two points.

I say again, how can you pay lower than minimum wage? Minimum implies what to you?

Secondly I have consistently criticised UK policy because of restrictions placed on English-speaking nations and none placed on others. You merely refer to Pakistani whose nation doesn't fall within EU borders.


There is another element. Public sector pay has been more or less frozen or cut over five years and will be for the next 4. 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 19% of people in employment. The last time I looked the Chancellor was decidedly and Englishman, not a Pole.

What's more, I find your comments about pensioners rather curious. Given your pechant for single handedly hunting down and purging all wacist sentiment from the Mudpit, I can only imagine the steam that would issue forth from your righteous and just ears if I were to write things such as:#

You could, but only old migrants would get free heating, TV license and a free ride. Hard facts. The younger ones get squat like the rest of youngkind. I could mention that older people are immune to bedroom tax even though the argument for older people having "excess" bedrooms is non-existent.

So immigrants are not fair game, but old people are?

Actually it is the young are being crapped on, where have you been in the last 20 years? I don't see why the old should leech off the young as they are now , in modern Britain. A third of the welfare bill is spent on pensioners. They should bear some of the burden of austerity like many working people are at this time.

As I wrote above, I am perfectly happy for my tax to support British pensioners who have worked and paid into the system.

What about that who haven't worked or paid in full? What about those living in France or Spain? What about the Gurkha or Jamaican midwife who have done their bit and retired. You happy to pay for their telly?

They are my kith and kin. they raised and supported me and now it's my turn, indeed my responsibility to support them in their old age.

On my planet humans have but two parents.

[Pielstick]

I say again, how can you pay lower than minimum wage? Minimum implies what to you?

You really are incredibly naive. Do you think every employer in the country pays the minimum wage? Do you think the adundance of migrants from poor countries doesn't provide a ready pool of people prepared to work for less than the minimum wage? I can tell you of an interior design firm in Chiswick (ironically owned by migrants) which employs migrants on student visas and pays them £2.50 per hour.

However, back to my original point - an overabundance of unskilled labour provided by the large number of migrants means employers can pay as little as possible. Don't want to do that job for £6.50 per hour? No problem, there's plenty of migrants who will. What incentive or pressure is there then for the employer to pay more? It's an exceedingly simple concept of supply and demand.

Now of course in the wibbly wobbly world of the Guardianista we just get the government to arbitrarily raise the minimum wage. Which then results in inflation and before you know it we're back at square one again complaining that the minimum wage isn't commensurate with the cost of living.

Far better to let the labour market naturally find the correct wage for unskilled work, and if you want that wage to be a decent one then you need to look at the supply side of the equation which means reducing the number of unskilled migrants entering the UK every year from poorer countries.

There is another element. Public sector pay has been more or less frozen or cut over five years and will be for the next 4. 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 19% of people in employment.

What that tells me is the UK public sector is too big.

You could, but only old migrants would get free heating, TV license and a free ride. Hard facts. The younger ones get squat like the rest of youngkind. I could mention that older people are immune to bedroom tax even though the argument for older people having "excess" bedrooms is non-existent.

First of all the "bedroom tax" is not a tax. Unless you care to explain to me exactly how you can be taxed on money that you never earned and was given to you by the state?

Secondly I refer you back to the study in the OP which shows migrant groups which have higher rates of benefit claims than native Britons. So clearly, they are getting something more than "squat".

Actually it is the young are being crapped on, where have you been in the last 20 years? I don't see why the old should leech off the young as they are now , in modern Britain. A third of the welfare bill is spent on pensioners. They should bear some of the burden of austerity like many working people are at this time.

My brother's stepdaughter, 26 years old. Never had a job in her life. Yet she has a flat and everything paid for her because she drops a sprog every five years.

My mother, 70 years old. Worked from the age of 16 until she was 60. Lives on a little more than £100 per week state pension.

Yes, the old are leeching off the young.

What about that who haven't worked or paid in full? What about those living in France or Spain? What about the Gurkha or Jamaican midwife who have done their bit and retired. You happy to pay for their telly?

Well I'm sure you are already aware the state pension is based on the amount of NI paid over your working life, so we've got that covered. Pensioners living in France or Spain? If they've paid into the system then I have no problem paying them the same state pension everyone else gets. The Gurkha in my opinion should get the maximum because he has served the country. The Jamaican midwife gets the same pension commensurate with her NI contributions.

Also, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about pensioners getting a free TV license. Instead of criticising the pensioners, why not criticse the BBC for insisting the state pays the license on their behalf? The BBC is awash with money and I'm sure they could get by just as well without the license fee for pensioners.

On my planet humans have but two parents.

Maybe on my planet I'm just a more responsible citizen than you.

[tgoodenow]

My understanding is that they are perfectly legal. The question is whether a contract deems the trainee as a worker , in which case they get paid.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-rights-for-interns


Employers aren't in the business of selecting standard people, they select the best qualified. At one end a 3rd worlder with a medical degree is more likely to secure a job as a doctor, obviously, than a native who doesn't. At the other end how much skill is required to drive a bus or mop the floors?



I post the definitive response

"Academic studies" don't cite the guardian.
Minimum wage doesn't prevent people paying less than minimum wage.
Just like making crack illegal doesn't stop crack dealers from selling crack.

[Enros]

I can tell you of an interior design firm in Chiswick (ironically owned by migrants) which employs migrants on student visas and pays them £2.50 per hour.

I can tell you of several major construction firms that employ native British apprentices for less than the minimum wage.

This is allowed due to some loophole. There are labourers who do less work than the apprentices but get more money.

[mongrel]

You really are incredibly naive. Do you think every employer in the country pays the minimum wage? Do you think the adundance of migrants from poor countries doesn't provide a ready pool of people prepared to work for less than the minimum wage? I can tell you of an interior design firm in Chiswick (ironically owned by migrants) which employs migrants on student visas and pays them £2.50 per hour.

If they pay less than minimum wage they break the law. Like paying people with drugs or guns.You shouldn't be telling this forum about an interior design firm paying less than minimum wage (apprentices don't get minimum wage by the way) , you should be telling HMRC. Here's your put up or shut up moment, go telephone 0800 917 2368 and inform the authorities.

However, back to my original point - an overabundance of unskilled labour provided by the large number of migrants means employers can pay as little as possible. Don't want to do that job for £6.50 per hour? No problem, there's plenty of migrants who will. What incentive or pressure is there then for the employer to pay more? It's an exceedingly simple concept of supply and demand.

As little as possible being the minimum wage. A simple example of government intervention.

Now of course in the wibbly wobbly world of the Guardianista we just get the government to arbitrarily raise the minimum wage. Which then results in inflation and before you know it we're back at square one again complaining that the minimum wage isn't commensurate with the cost of living.

Now you are complaining that the government is putting up wages which foreigners are supposed to be suppressing. Make your mind up.

Far better to let the labour market naturally find the correct wage for unskilled work, and if you want that wage to be a decent one then you need to look at the supply side of the equation which means reducing the number of unskilled migrants entering the UK every year from poorer countries.

So you want employers to pay less than the minimum wage , but then you are blaming foreigners for "lowering wages" . And I suppose you want me, the taxpayer to supplement crap wages with tax credits? So why bother with the OP?

What that tells me is the UK public sector is too big..

Nonetheless no Pole is responsible for austerity policies reducing wages for millions of workers. A hard fact.

First of all the "bedroom tax" is not a tax. Unless you care to explain to me exactly how you can be taxed on money that you never earned and was given to you by the state?

Tell that to the working family forced to fork out extra couple thousand quid a year because their child has died, or the disabled person kicked out of their adapted home because they can't afford this arbitrary imposition. Treat people the same or don't bother. You cant tell me that a single pensioner in a 3 bedroom house has a better social need for a house than a couple in their 20s.

Secondly I refer you back to the study in the OP which shows migrant groups which have higher rates of benefit claims than native Britons. So clearly, they are getting something more than "squat".

Some migrant groups have higher rates of claim than many Britons , because in this country benefits are doled out according to circumstances , not ones race. Young people, not just migrants on low pay will find benefits squeezed whilst, eventually, wages rise to cover the slack. That is the reality. Pensioners in the meantime will no doubt continue to suckle on Britannia's tits as long as it is acceptable to offer them electoral bribes.

Well I'm sure you are already aware the state pension is based on the amount of NI paid over your working life, so we've got that covered. Pensioners living in France or Spain? If they've paid into the system then I have no problem paying them the same state pension everyone else gets. The Gurkha in my opinion should get the maximum because he has served the country. The Jamaican midwife gets the same pension commensurate with her NI contributions.

So why use the term British? Because "brother's stepdaughter, 26 years old. Never had a job in her life. Yet she has a flat and everything paid for her because she drops a sprog every five years." presumably is.

Also, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about pensioners getting a free TV license. Instead of criticising the pensioners, why not criticse the BBC for insisting the state pays the license on their behalf? The BBC is awash with money and I'm sure they could get by just as well without the license fee for pensioners.

Because this perk was Gordon Brown's idea and was never repealed. Sky is awash with money.Do you want the taxpayer to pay for a pensioner's fix of#Game of Thrones too?

Maybe on my planet I'm just a more responsible citizen than you.

If my brother had a stepdaughter I wouldn't treat her with such contempt. If you can't love your kinfolk, no wonder you don't like anyone else.

I can tell you of several major construction firms that employ native British apprentices for less than the minimum wage.

This is allowed due to some loophole. There are labourers who do less work than the apprentices but get more money.

I mentioned this before.

Umbrella companies , or I should say the dodgier ones try to squeeze profits by paying wages in a way which transfers costs to the worker. The umbrella company’s fee and employers national insurance contributions are deducted. The worker is then paid the national minimum wage, and deductions are made for tax and employees NI. The workers are then encouraged to make claims for travel and expenses to boost their wages, but may find themselves disappointed when they are told that, as employees, they should not have any.

The apprentice rate is £2.73 an hour. of course it's lower than NMW.It is not a loophole, and yes an older , establish worker is entitled to the NMW even if sat on his arse. He or she could risk the sack though.

"
Minimum wage doesn't prevent people paying less than minimum wage.
.

Is the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in the statute book or not? You know the answer to that one.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Less than a page and we're getting "facist" and "racist" thrown around already.

Standard tactics of the left then.


@Ferrets: The author of the UCL report has links to a pro-immigration pressure group. I linked this. So to call out Migration Watch as biased yet hold up the UCL report as the paragon of academic objectivity is a rather severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. It would appear you can lead a horse (or ferret?) to water....

As per usual you are engaging in the rather puerile approach of declaring "your" source as being superior and superceding all others... just because you say it does. You are not the sole arbiter of the validity of a source.

However, feel free to explain how the statistics in the Migration Watch study are incorrect or have been misrepresented.


@Mongrel: Again, if you can't see how having an open border to nearly 500 million people, many of whom are from countries with significantly lower wages and living standards to the UK creates a very large pool of low paid labour which in turn contributes to wage compression, then again I don't really know how I can explain it to you. Maybe I should take out a two page ad in the Guardian or something?

What's more, I find your comments about pensioners rather curious. Given your pechant for single handedly hunting down and purging all wacist sentiment from the Mudpit, I can only imagine the steam that would issue forth from your righteous and just ears if I were to write things such as:



or



So immigrants are not fair game, but old people are? That is a ing whopping great big double standard you've got right there pal.

As I wrote above, I am perfectly happy for my tax to support British pensioners who have worked and paid into the system. They are my kith and kin. they raised and supported me and now it's my turn, indeed my responsibility to support them in their old age. It is not my responsibility to support economic migrants who have just got off the boat.


Finally, @Justicar: The link I posted is from a "fascist source" and I am a "conspiracy nutter"? Sweet Jesus, I've been rumbled. Your acute observational skills and command of logic and reason have overwhelmed me. What's more, thanks to your insightful analysis I have seen the error of my ways. I'm just off out now to burn an effigy of Mrs Thatcher and I shall be joining the SWP and UAF post haste.

Link it again.

[Pielstick]

If they pay less than minimum wage they break the law. Like paying people with drugs or guns.You shouldn't be telling this forum about an interior design firm paying less than minimum wage (apprentices don't get minimum wage by the way) , you should be telling HMRC. Here's your put up or shut up moment, go telephone 0800 917 2368 and inform the authorities.

I reported the company to HMRC and DWP in 2013.

In the last two years my wife has been offered three jobs in London, all off the books, cash in hand, no tax being paid. Every single one of these companies was owned and run by migrants. Now this is skilled work in the design and architecture sector, so knows what's going on at the bottom end of the economy. Luckily for us Mongrel, you insist this can't be happening because it's illegal.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you think all that needs to happen is the government plucks an arbitrary figure out of it's backside and says that's the minimum wage, and everyone lives happily ever after. Clearly you need to be schooled on basic economic principles. If you honestly don't think bringing a quarter of a million migrants into the country each year isn't having an effect on the labour market and that in turn isn't effecting the wages being paid then you're beyond any reasoning.

"But... but... but... minimum wage!" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Link it again.

Yes of course, you want me to link a Daily Mail article so you can start another condescending tirade.

I'm sure a man of your towering intellect and press buttons in the correct sequence to do some background reading on Christian Dustmann and his involvement with CReAM.

In the meantime, here's what another terribly biased - and therefore worthless - think tank has to say about Dustmann's study:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRimmigration.html

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yes of course, you want me to link a Daily Mail article so you can start another condescending tirade.

I'm sure a man of your towering intellect and press buttons in the correct sequence to do some background reading on Christian Dustmann and his involvement with CReAM.

In the meantime, here's what another terribly biased - and therefore worthless - think tank has to say about Dustmann's study:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRimmigration.html

By this I assume you mean give basic scrutiny to your sources?

I can't see any source here linking the Professor to outside interests? Your link deals with his study on anticipated immigration to the EU from new countries in 2004, to which you know you have been exhaustively answered: the study assumed all existing EU countries would open their labour markets, and in later historical fact this did not happen. Very simple.

[mongrel]

I reported the company to HMRC and DWP in 2013..[/QUOTE]

The either did their job then I presume this isn't happening now.

In the last two years my wife has been offered three jobs in London, all off the books, cash in hand, no tax being paid. Every single one of these companies was owned and run by migrants. Now this is skilled work in the design and architecture sector, so knows what's going on at the bottom end of the economy. .

I stubbed my toe once , on a paving slab. Probably laid by migrants.

Also burnt some toast. The lady who sold me the bread was a migrant.

Bus took ages to get to the station. Migrants on the road.

Migrants bought the last box of Pringles.

Mars bars are expensive nowadays. Bloody migrants.

Your world must be so grim.

Luckily for us Mongrel, you insist this can't be happening because it's illegal.

Its happening, but being a rational logical chap I recognise that this activity is practiced by rogue employers. However for the law-abiding mainstream, it is ridiculous to claim that migration in itself drives down wages when not only we have a minimum wage, but one that is rising incrementally.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you think all that needs to happen is the government plucks an arbitrary figure out of it's backside and says that's the minimum wage, and everyone lives happily ever after. Clearly you need to be schooled on basic economic principles. If you honestly don't think bringing a quarter of a million migrants into the country each year isn't having an effect on the labour market and that in turn isn't effecting the wages being paid then you're beyond any reasoning.

Actually I didn't, the Chancellor did. Its in the Budget. Are you better qualified than Osborne and his advisors? I think not somehow. Anyway employers should pay the going rate for the job, why should the taxpayer pay a sizeable portion of a Tesco worker's wage? For you, The Sun newspaper is the fount of wisdom, to be , it is an inferior arsewipe

[Sphere]

As for the non skilled jobs, of course anyone can do them, but non skilled jobs are limited in numbers. If you already have a relative high number of non-skilled unemployed, what's the point of adding more in the hundreds of thousands?

The number of jobs in an economy is limitless. The UK population has tripled in the past 150 years. The number of jobs have also tripled. There is no cap.

[tgoodenow]

Its happening, but being a rational logical chap I recognise that this activity is practiced by rogue employers. However for the law-abiding mainstream, it is ridiculous to claim that migration in itself drives down wages when not only we have a minimum wage, but one that is rising incrementally.

In America, prior to a large influx of illegal immigration, low-skilled jobs represented the majority of jobs worked by African-Americans. The United States Civil Rights Commission was pestered enough by African-American leadership to do a study on the effect that Illegal immigrants have on black wages and employment. In that study it was found that:

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men. Expert economic opinions concerning the negative effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and construction.

Dr Hanson, from the university of California found:
Research suggested that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the labor supply is associated with a 4 percent decrease in black wages, a 3.5 percent decrease in the black employment rate, and a 0.8 percent increase in the black incarceration rate.11 This correlation held true in both national and state-level data, according to Hanson. The same data source showed that the effect of immigration on white men also produced a 4.1 percent decrease in wages, but had much less effect on employment and incarceration rates.

Source:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

[mongrel]

In America, prior to a large influx of illegal immigration, low-skilled jobs represented the majority of jobs worked by African-Americans. The United States Civil Rights Commission was pestered enough by African-American leadership to do a study on the effect that Illegal immigrants have on black wages and employment. In that study it was found that:

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men. Expert economic opinions concerning the negative effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and construction.

Dr Hanson, from the university of California found:
Research suggested that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the labor supply is associated with a 4 percent decrease in black wages, a 3.5 percent decrease in the black employment rate, and a 0.8 percent increase in the black incarceration rate.11 This correlation held true in both national and state-level data, according to Hanson. The same data source showed that the effect of immigration on white men also produced a 4.1 percent decrease in wages, but had much less effect on employment and incarceration rates.

Source:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

Utterly irrelevant.


We don't live in America.

We have a functional minimum wage, which is due to rise significantly over the next 5 years. By definition these wages can't be depressed.

Britain's migration issues relate to legal migration, it cannot control migration from the EU.

[tgoodenow]

Utterly irrelevant.


We don't live in America.

We have a functional minimum wage, which is due to rise significantly over the next 5 years. By definition these wages can't be depressed.

Britain's migration issues relate to legal migration, it cannot control migration from the EU.

A minimum wage doesn't mean wage depression cannot occur. Wage stagnation is caused by wage depression. With an overabundance of low-wage earners, there is no incentive to raise wages above minimum wage because there is always someone willing to work for minimum wage. There are no technical skills required so every worker is a perfect substitute. There are no barriers of entry. Pay does not increase unless there is a minimum wage increase. Minimum wages are not tied to inflation. The purchasing power of the lowest paid workers are the hardest hit because they are the ones who face the competition from the migrants. While "minimum wages" may increase, their real wages will continue to decrease without government intervention by raising the minimum wage.





Here is a report from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non profit, think tank that is funded by The UN, Carnegie Corporation, etc. This is a report that was requested by the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) In their report they found:

"The evidence does suggest that some disadvantaged groups may experience wage stagnation as a result of low-skilled immigration."

I can't cite the article because it is a download link. To find the article go to google and search for "Migration Policy Institute the recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the *bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers." First article.
You may not suffer wage depression because you may work in a job that has barriers of entry. Those that work in jobs with no barriers are the most vulnerable to the impacts of low-skilled immigration. Those at that are middle earners and higher earners end up seeing an increase in purchasing power owing to price drops. Those prices drops happen because of cheaper labor. The people at the top are better off but the bottom gets screwed.

[mongrel]

Migration Policy Institute the recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the *bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers

Sounds a tad tentative doesn't it? What about the definitely reduced wages imposed on millions due to Government austerity measures, or by money being poured into shareholders pockets under the modern doctrine of shareholder value, rather than investing in productivity and rewarding workers, a trend which existed long before the Lisbon treaty? Referring to the graph, how was the fall in wages between 1990 to 2000 due to East European migration, which have not taken effect until 2004 onwards? Post 2008, surely the recession and austerity had a massive effect on wages?

I tell you why your points don't add up, the graph come from this site.

I quote from it

"I have written before about way the deviation of real wages from output per hour worked or labour productivity. The increasing gap between the two with real wages lagging behind labour productivity has been a characteristic of the neo-liberal era, as a result of concerted attacks on the capacity of workers to gain real wages growth (legislative, market-based – that is, persistent underutilisation of labour, and self-destruction by many unions).

In most advanced countries, the gap started opening around the 1980s and has led to a major redistribution of real national income towards profits without a commensurate surge in private sector investment in productive plant, equipment and buildings."


"In the past, the dilemma of capitalism was that the firms had to keep real wages growing in line with productivity to ensure that the goods and services designed for current consumption produced were sold.

But in the neo-liberal period, capitalists have found a new way to accomplish this which allowed them to suppress real wages growth and pocket increasing shares of the national income produced as profits. Along the way, this munificence also manifested as the ridiculous executive pay deals that we have read about constantly over the last decade or so.

Goverment deregulation of the financial markets and a relaxation of oversight by the prudential authorities, all in the name of the self-regulating, free market myth provided the answer.

The rise of ‘financial engineering’ over this period as banks went wild in the deregulated environment pushed ever increasing debt onto the household sector."

Exactly the point I made above.

In my youth a person could run a household on one wage and were more or less free to work as one wishes without too much slacking. Now two wages can't even guarantee buying a house or in London may not even pay the rent. Workers are also over-supervised/over-managed . Hands up those who agree.


I am not sure why people love to blame everyone other than those actually responsible for neo-liberal wealth distribution over the last few decades.

[tgoodenow]

Migration Policy Institute the recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the *bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers

Sounds a tad tentative doesn't it? What about the definitely reduced wages imposed on millions due to Government austerity measures, or by money being poured into shareholders pockets under the modern doctrine of shareholder value, rather than investing in productivity and rewarding workers, a trend which existed long before the Lisbon treaty? Referring to the graph, how was the fall in wages between 1990 to 2000 due to East European migration, which have not taken effect until 2004 onwards? Post 2008, surely the recession and austerity had a massive effect on wages?

I tell you why your points don't add up, the graph come from this site.

I quote from it

"I have written before about way the deviation of real wages from output per hour worked or labour productivity. The increasing gap between the two with real wages lagging behind labour productivity has been a characteristic of the neo-liberal era, as a result of concerted attacks on the capacity of workers to gain real wages growth (legislative, market-based – that is, persistent underutilisation of labour, and self-destruction by many unions).

In most advanced countries, the gap started opening around the 1980s and has led to a major redistribution of real national income towards profits without a commensurate surge in private sector investment in productive plant, equipment and buildings."


"In the past, the dilemma of capitalism was that the firms had to keep real wages growing in line with productivity to ensure that the goods and services designed for current consumption produced were sold.

But in the neo-liberal period, capitalists have found a new way to accomplish this which allowed them to suppress real wages growth and pocket increasing shares of the national income produced as profits. Along the way, this munificence also manifested as the ridiculous executive pay deals that we have read about constantly over the last decade or so.

Goverment deregulation of the financial markets and a relaxation of oversight by the prudential authorities, all in the name of the self-regulating, free market myth provided the answer.

The rise of ‘financial engineering’ over this period as banks went wild in the deregulated environment pushed ever increasing debt onto the household sector."

Exactly the point I made above.

In my youth a person could run a household on one wage and were more or less free to work as one wishes without too much slacking. Now two wages can't even guarantee buying a house or in London may not even pay the rent. Workers are also over-supervised/over-managed . Hands up those who agree.


I am not sure why people love to blame everyone other than those actually responsible for neo-liberal wealth distribution over the last few decades.

Were looking at a single variable and its effects. That variable is low-skilled immigration. A three four or five percent decrease in pay may not mean much to you, especially if the overall economy benefits. But it means a lot to low income workers. There may be other variables at play, I am not trying to argue about the overall contributors to a low paying job.
With an over abundance of supply of low wage workers, there will be less demand for a single worker as they are much more replaceable. This makes compensation fall and the only thing that stops that fall is the minimum wage. The UK, unlike the U.S., enforced the minimum wage so the remains the bottom. Without it their wages would continue falling. The impact by illegal workers in the U.S. Shows how far it would fall if there was no bottom.

[mongrel]

Were looking at a single variable and its effects. That variable is low-skilled immigration. A three four or five percent decrease in pay may not mean much to you, especially if the overall economy benefits. But it means a lot to low income workers. There may be other variables at play, I am not trying to argue about the overall contributors to a low paying job.
With an over abundance of supply of low wage workers, there will be less demand for a single worker as they are much more replaceable. This makes compensation fall and the only thing that stops that fall is the minimum wage. The UK, unlike the U.S., enforced the minimum wage so the remains the bottom. Without it their wages would continue falling. The impact by illegal workers in the U.S. Shows how far it would fall if there was no bottom.

The point is that there is a bottom, which is rising, not falling. the other point being that millions of workers, skilled or not have had their wages depressed over the last 30 years or so by a margin far more than 3-5 % due to neo-liberal practices .The state has had to subsidise wages as a result ( thus any hypothetical depression from job competition , such as it is, would be wiped out anyway). That is the way until the current Budget reforms kick in.