Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
From this article on immigration:
"Foreign workers were reducing pay rates by accepting lower wages, prompting many of the unemployed to remain on benefits rather than look for work." And: "Immigration is not essential to our economic growth. Wages should be allowed to rise to make lower paid jobs worthwhile and to encourage productivity. Increasing productivity is the only way that a nation can become richer," Migrationwatch said. There are a few points that make no sense to me, but the crux of my quandary is the claim that higher wages = increased productivity. Surely if immigrants take up jobs at lower wages they'll be an increase in productivity, not a decrease? I see decreasing wages in the less skilled sectors as a good argument against immigration, but not productivity. Am I missing something? |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
They're probably misusing the term 'productivity'. In the sense they're speaking it's probably amount of wealth generated by the employee per hour (which isn't the usual definition - quite the opposite).
Arguably if a job pays more then there will be a higher rate of productivity for each hour worked per employee, but again that wouldn't be the normal terminology (since productivity is usually measured by comparing output to labour cost).* Alternately they could just be talking about productivity among the current (English) unemployed. * = http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...ic_benefit.asp - here they seem to be talking about productivity in a completely independent sense - i.e. we don't need immigrants for the economy to grow. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
The second possibility is a little stupid; if someone wants to do a job at a lower rate I can't see how that equates to them being less productive.
I'm guessing it's the third, and thus they're idiots. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
It's quite simple: as long as wages are kept low (due to the influx of immigrant workers who keep the market oversupplied), there will be no incentive for the employer to rationalize, invest in new equipment (constant capital) and so on. Thereby the productivity per hour will remain low.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
edit : Also, looking purely at economics misses the point about the immigration debate I thnk. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
I havent checked out the webby thats beeing refered too, nor do I think I would agree with all of it (to be diplomatic).
To widen my first post: 1) Market conditions (labour oversupply or undersupply etc) effect not only the prices of wages directly (competition between employers for the labour), but it also gives increased prices of labour trough the strenghtening of labour trough politics and labour unions. 2) Trough political parties and unions labour can advocate shorter days and better protection at the work place. 3) Yes, as Dante point out: higher wages will lead to workers beeing replaced with machines. That leads to better productivity. More investment in constant capital (machines) make the price of labour a lesser factor. And thats good, so the price of labour can continue to rise. 4) The whole point is to increase productivity per hour of labour. Indeed, if you look at it for a greath deal of time, its vital that it rises per hour. If not, you don't really have any gain. Let me take two examples. GDP rises in a country with 2%. At the same time there is increased population. So that productivity per hour has not risen. Meaning that the purchasing power (or level of weath as it is also called) has not risen. The country stands where it is. Soviet invested heavily in industry. Up to the begining of the 70's they had quite a good growth per year (GDP-wise). However, that growth stopped and then later turned slightly negative. Becouse there was no increase in productivity per hour worked, in the end there would be no rise in GDP per capita. Soviet failed to make the labour more effective (like improving education), failed to develop new ways of producing and new machines. Ofcourse you can increase the number of hours that each worker must work. But you cannot do this a) for ever b) without cost. A worker that works longer is most likely less productive per hour, more prone to injuries, less able to develop himself/herself as a human beeing and thus find ways to increase productivity. The scandinavian model should be looked as an example of how a "high-cost, high productivity" economy can work. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
That appears to be a difference of perspective. Productivity by the nation, per capita or by the company/industry in question.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Having said this, I'd still reject the idea that immigrants are to "blame" for this - while we have global inequality you're going to have migration of this kind and businesses would be stupid not to utilise it. Obviously there are issues where people blatantly misuse migrant (especially illegal) labour, and there does seem to be a missed opportunity among unions in organising in new communities. America, which is a bit further ahead of Europe in this regard, has shown some movement here recently. In any case, the entire demographic / welfare / workforce structure of Europe seems to be totally unsustainable and immigrants are only going to be a temporary solution at best. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
You don't buy it? Oh well.
Both theory and practise tells us that you are wrong, so I frankly don't care if you buy it or not. Just go to any country with really low wages for manual labour (like India). |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
You're comparing companies in a third-world country to ones in developed countries.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Also, the current economic climate isn't necessarily 'ripe' for heavy capital expenditure for want of interest rates being reasonably high and set to continue to rise, and the strength of the pound narrowing avenues for export. And since immigrant labour is being supplied at under-the-odds, it seems probable that the gross product a company gets out of that unit of labour is higher than for existing members (yeah yeah, diminishing returns), which to me sounds like a net increase in productivity. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
And Im not employed to spell it out for any idiot either.
Unless someone decides to pay me. :) |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Although I shudder to do it, I must agree with Zhukov (there that was definitely a shudder but I shall go on).
A local example, in California, of what is being discussed is rasin production. Illegal immigration supplies a low-cost alternative to innovation and mechanization of the rasin production process. Short term this has meant that investment in research of better ways to produce raisins suffered. Additionally, when new methods came to the fore in other countries, there was no incentive to investing in the equipment. The farmers were able to maintain their profits by using cheap labor. However, in the longer run, the cost to produce rasins in other countries has continued to fall because, even with higher wages for the machine operators, the per unit cost of the raisin has continued to fall where mechanization and new methods have been employed. In California, the only way to bring down cost is to pay even lower wages to those who supply the labor to produce the grapes. This means that at least some workers leave the field (so to speak) rather than accepting lower wages, especially in California where welfare benefits are much higher than elsewhere. So, it becomes necessary to bring in even more low income illegal aliens to stay even moderately competitive. However, minimum wage laws make it impossible to pay the lowest paid workers less. Wages are not elastic downward in this case. The result is that California rasins are becoming more expensive to produce than in other areas which have adapted because labor was in greater demand and shorter supply. Now, the situation is that the raisin industry in California is going to have to upgrade their machinery and techniques. This is going to cause a dislocation in the market for labor which will cause even more people to go on welfare and/or cause wages in other marginal occupations to fall because of additional desperate people on the job market. Non-artificial shortages of any part of the production process, promote innovation to overcome the shortage. Unskilled, low-priced labor reduces the need to innovate. It also reduces the need for skilled, better-paid labor. Thus it perpetuates poverty. Migration from areas with plentiful supplies of people desperate to work for any wage however low, is going to have a negative effect on the new country. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
The method you are looking for to counter the 'zhukov/dda point' is a two pronged attack designed to highlight their disapproval for their own arguments. You might try the following: 1) in re zhukov point out that his argument is essentially 'migrant workers willing to work for low wages delays the increased mechanisation of production' then calmly remind him that once production is mechanised nobody is employed at all to do those jobs and this is BAD for the workers. He should then logically concede that there is nothing obvious wrong with allowing immigrants to work those jobs should they so wish. 2) in re dda point out that immigrant workers willing to work for low pay effectively cushion the small business during the transition to improved mechanisation and highlight that well run businesses will choose to become more efficient or not on their own. if the existence of unskilled labour makes badly run businesses delay investing in efficiency then it doesn't matter because better run businesses will have made the choice to improve efficiency: those businesses who fall will be replaced. And to anyone who suggests that the presence of unskilled labour in a market place discourages the existence of skilled labour I suggest you just laugh at their suggestion that the existence of macdonalds restaurant staff threatens the number of doctors in a society. Good hunting young one xxx |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
California is ideally suited to rasin production. It is a huge grape producer. America was built by immigrants but Amrerica has historically been a country with high wages as compared to other areas. Even in colonial days, America had high wages. And yes the Mexicans are a marvelous group with nothing but a long string of successes in supporting the rights of their citizens and producing a vibrant economy with a high standard of living for their people. Americans have only drug California down and that is why it is the hell hole that it is. This is why we can't keep Californians from sneaking across the border into Mexico to savor the good life in that country. We are a disgrace. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am neither advocating not opposing immigration by what I have said. Immigration policies are very complicated matters depending on the goals and values of a society. To indicate that they are all good or all bad is naive and foolish. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
A lot of Zhukov's argument assumes that there is mechnical / capital investment which can be undertaken. That is obviously the case in industrial (and many agricultural) jobs, but it's not quite clear that they are the jobs most immigrants actually do (in Britain today at least).
The British economy is dominated by service sector jobs and immigrants are often employed in areas where it isn't always as easy to "mechanise". Cleaners, bus drivers, waiters, etc - these jobs may one day be done by machines, but at present there is only very limited amount of capital investment one can undertake. Even with things like construction - an area which does have quite a bit of mechanisation - the remaining jobs (plumbers, electricians, labourers, bricklayers, carpenters, etc) aren't directly mechanisable. Productivity in these areas can be raised by better use of IT (e.g. PDAs for work orders) but that's not really related to wage levels (since it doesn't really replace the need for any workers). |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Do you think that the pressure of low income workers helps or hinders the growth of wages in the service areas?
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
2) Studying economics trough studies of marxism and imperialism. 3) Studying economical history. 4) Keeping up to date on news about outsorcing, moving of production, moving of services, moving of labour, subsidies, new production methods, how firms react to pressure on margins, etc etc. Now can you please enlighten me why you are qualified to post about this? |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
At least when mark does a fizhicks thread to death he provides arguments based on maths or provides relevant links. Neither of which you have done.
Oh no he didn't! OH YES HE DID! |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
And for crying out loud, America has been a melting pot of several cultures untill the manifest destinty slowly forged them into a single nation, and still, still there is the big coast vs. inland approach to life. So don't ever think America has a 'tradition' for the coming hundred years, ever. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
I remember when inequality in America ended with the civil war. In bizzaro world.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Lets take some examples off how it be done. 1) Construction: Pre-fabrication. Your basicly build parts of the house or the whole house on a different site and then move the parts or the house to where it shal be built. This is already common in shipbuilding. This leads to the possibility of serial production and "indstrialization" of construction. 2) Subway, a sandwich-chain, has introduced fordism (or assembly line) in the way it's employees make the sandwich. 3) Less persons on the job. For instance in a bar etc. The bartender serves more costumers per hour. This also means that the costumer might have to wait a bit. In Norway you have to wait and the price of manual labour is high. In India you dont have to wait, and the price of manual labour is very low. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Zhukov, you are 'generally' approaching 'general' sectors, while you 'generally' asume a lot of things.
Things are going wrong you know when you are classifying service to production companies. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
If you go to a Subway or a car plant, its still a assembly line, isnt it?
Point is that there is not always a clear distinction between services and production. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
No shit sherlock, there are few services which do not have parts of a production item in them, even barristers who have to produce reports and archives and there are no production lines that are pure produres, since every buy has a contract and a contract is per definition a service. However it is also a matter of classifying.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Regarding immigrants in general, if people are willing to move to a country to work, and an employer there is willing to give them a job, what's the problem? Obviously, the work should be legal, and should, at the very least, meet the minimum standards set down in law. One thing we always seem to forget is the fact that immigrants are people too, and denying them the right to come here to work when someone would give them a job is quite unfair. I have little sympathy with the 'dirty foreigners are stealing our jobs!' argument. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Quote:
We're so cool. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Which is why you should question what you're being taught. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
There seems to be an inadvertent disregard, in this thread and Migrationwatch, on the difference between illegal immigrants and permanent legal immigrants.
Legal immigration is essential to economic growth because it profits a nation by welcoming additional taxpayers on top of right of blood and right of soil citizens. All a country really needs to do to acquire more legal immigrants is to ease up immigration laws and open up ports for other people to have the opportunity of working and living a way of life that's (most likely) better than where they came from. Legal immigrants, since taxpayers, have rights to financial aid, educational and housing benefits, welfare, retirement and minimum wage as you would as citizens Illegal immigrants/workers are a liability for both economic and societies because they are unclaimed, untaxed production in the work force, and with the nature of their residence makes their communities feel "threatened" of their presence. A good fix for this is openly easing up immigration applications and laws, legalizing illegal immigrants, and then raising wages to encourage productivity. There are other things though that are concerns regarding immigration other than a nation's economy. Using economics as an alibi because of harboring anti-immigration ideas by Migrationwatch is somewhat disturbing. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
Perhaps other Subway's run differently, ****ed if I know, just speaking from experience here. But assembly-line operation isn't efficient because things are laid-out in a linear fashion, but only because the people working a particular section of that line become very specialised (and shit-hot) at their tiny aspect of making the whole. At least from my experience, Subway is a non-example of this. Also stop saying 'productivity per hour', it sounds retarded. I think we can assume that, like pretty much everyone else if you were to say 'productivity' we would assume some 'output per hour' metric. It's like saying 'output per hour per hour'; what is that, acceleration? |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
I am well aware of the shortcomings of economics (for instance that people are always rational, that perfect information exist etc etc). And as dda pointed out, this is not merely text-book nonsense. It would be wiser for you to admit "defeat" then try to make a bigger fool out of yourself with these poor replies. (and since you don't list your huge list of qualifications on this subject, I assume you really don't have any) |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
I just read through this thread about immigration of mine from nearly a year ago.
Some arguments made there might be relevant... But yeh - it annoys me when people get Legal immigration and Illegal immigration mixed up. |
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
In this thread someone told someone else on the internet they had been defeated and my head exploded from the pressure.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Quote:
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Occasionally, in threads about working, where people don't explicitly list their jobs I assume they don't have one.
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
Well, I can't tell if someone's posts are good or not until I've read their CV which means I'm mostly confused. :(
|
Re: Migrationwatch: Does this make any sense to you?
It's still not quite as retarded a post as Kenny's 'Russian Space Pen' come-back but the race for jackass-of-the-year's hot hot hot!
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018