4 ms·

I don't mean to defend xenophobic attitudes against immigration, but labor shortage should lead to higher wages, so the argument against immigration that they d

I don't mean to defend xenophobic attitudes against immigration, but labor shortage should lead to higher wages, so the argument against immigration that they depress wages would still hold.

nonethewiser 4y ago
That doesn't defend xenophobia in any way. Being against immigration in some scenarios does not mean you're xenophobic.
trashtester 4y ago
Specifically, labor shortages lead to higher salaries for those groups who no longer have to compete with the type of immigrants that used to come, and only if the demand is limited. But for most other groups, it may lead to a reduction in real salaries, due to price inflation. Fewer carpenters makes housing more expensive, and fewer tech workers can make many businesses (especially those outside core tech that still depend on such workers) more expensive to run. And for workers in global hubs, one could argue that the concentration in one geographic location (including immigration) has actually lead to higher demand due to the increase in vibrancy and rate of innovation, leading to an increase in salaries.
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
It isn't. You are saying it "should"...wages in the UK are rising 4% slower than inflation, so there is real erosion of wages WHILST there is the biggest labour shortage in the history of the UK. Just speaking generally, labour tends to be a market in which there is massive govt intervention (this is particularly the case in the UK). The normal rules of economics do not hold. One very big factor in the UK is universal credit. You can Google this for yourself but the relevance here is that it acts as a wage subsidy for employers, this gets people into work but there is very little incentive to work more hours (despite the govt being able to remove universal credit from people who refuse to work more). The UK has got read of the persistently high unemployment under left-wing govts of the 2000s but has failed to improve productivity. We employ more people but they are barely producing more on aggregate. Immigration, more women working (universal credit generally supports more women more), it is all coalescing, nothing is working properly.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Universal credit is terrible: people on UC are significantly more likely to not be able to afford food and rent. https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/universal-credit-and-foodbank-use/ https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/u... > We employ more people but they are barely producing more on aggregate Yes, and this is a management/underinvestment problem. Either better working practices need to be introduced or capital investment to substitute for labour.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    ...right because universal credit is a benefit target at poor people. Almost everyone who is on universal credit will receive a rent subsidy too (add it up: employer subsidy, landlord subsidy...everything is subsidized). The main issue with UC is that it is too generous and significantly reduces the incentive to work (and btw, UC was introduced specifically to increase the incentive to work and get rid of structural unemployment...it did the latter but has failed totally at the former...all we did is give employers a wage subsidy, and it didn't actually lead to more productivity or more anything). No, it isn't. Because labour is not a substitute for a machine, you can get rid of a worker for a machine but a machine doesn't vote, can't riot, etc. You still need to feed and clothe a human. The UK has, literally, millions of people who need work and will be unable to support themselves with the economy at the current size. I don't know what the solution is, but we won't be able to grow our way out of this (we tried in the early 2010s, it didn't work, we tried in the 2000s, it didn't work). One issue is that we spend massive amounts of money on subsidies but don't invest in skills (a lot of the problem today is with older people...so improving education won't work there). The scale of the underemployment is probably ~5m people...in a working population of 32m...it is far bigger than people think AND we are bringing 1m people a year into the economy whose fertility is significantly higher...it is a very big problem.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      > and it didn't actually lead to more productivity or more anything Yes, and this is a demonstration that benefit cuts to starve people into working are not going to work. > main issue with UC is that it is too generous People at the foodbank are not going to agree with this. > scale of the underemployment is probably ~5m people...in a working population of 32m [citation needed] > don't invest in skills This I can agree on. > The UK has, literally, millions of people who need work The headline is "labour shortage"? There's no evidence of a vast hidden army of the unemployed, this isn't the 1980s.

I don't mean to defend xenophobic attitudes against immigration, but labor shortage should lead to higher wages, so the argument against immigration that they depress wages would still hold.

nonethewiser 4y ago

That doesn't defend xenophobia in any way. Being against immigration in some scenarios does not mean you're xenophobic.

trashtester 4y ago

Specifically, labor shortages lead to higher salaries for those groups who no longer have to compete with the type of immigrants that used to come, and only if the demand is limited. But for most other groups, it may lead to a reduction in real salaries, due to price inflation. Fewer carpenters makes housing more expensive, and fewer tech workers can make many businesses (especially those outside core tech that still depend on such workers) more expensive to run. And for workers in global hubs, one could argue that the concentration in one geographic location (including immigration) has actually lead to higher demand due to the increase in vibrancy and rate of innovation, leading to an increase in salaries.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

It isn't. You are saying it "should"...wages in the UK are rising 4% slower than inflation, so there is real erosion of wages WHILST there is the biggest labour shortage in the history of the UK. Just speaking generally, labour tends to be a market in which there is massive govt intervention (this is particularly the case in the UK). The normal rules of economics do not hold. One very big factor in the UK is universal credit. You can Google this for yourself but the relevance here is that it acts as a wage subsidy for employers, this gets people into work but there is very little incentive to work more hours (despite the govt being able to remove universal credit from people who refuse to work more). The UK has got read of the persistently high unemployment under left-wing govts of the 2000s but has failed to improve productivity. We employ more people but they are barely producing more on aggregate. Immigration, more women working (universal credit generally supports more women more), it is all coalescing, nothing is working properly.

pjc50 4y ago
Universal credit is terrible: people on UC are significantly more likely to not be able to afford food and rent. https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/universal-credit-and-foodbank-use/ https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/u... > We employ more people but they are barely producing more on aggregate Yes, and this is a management/underinvestment problem. Either better working practices need to be introduced or capital investment to substitute for labour.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  ...right because universal credit is a benefit target at poor people. Almost everyone who is on universal credit will receive a rent subsidy too (add it up: employer subsidy, landlord subsidy...everything is subsidized). The main issue with UC is that it is too generous and significantly reduces the incentive to work (and btw, UC was introduced specifically to increase the incentive to work and get rid of structural unemployment...it did the latter but has failed totally at the former...all we did is give employers a wage subsidy, and it didn't actually lead to more productivity or more anything). No, it isn't. Because labour is not a substitute for a machine, you can get rid of a worker for a machine but a machine doesn't vote, can't riot, etc. You still need to feed and clothe a human. The UK has, literally, millions of people who need work and will be unable to support themselves with the economy at the current size. I don't know what the solution is, but we won't be able to grow our way out of this (we tried in the early 2010s, it didn't work, we tried in the 2000s, it didn't work). One issue is that we spend massive amounts of money on subsidies but don't invest in skills (a lot of the problem today is with older people...so improving education won't work there). The scale of the underemployment is probably ~5m people...in a working population of 32m...it is far bigger than people think AND we are bringing 1m people a year into the economy whose fertility is significantly higher...it is a very big problem.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > and it didn't actually lead to more productivity or more anything Yes, and this is a demonstration that benefit cuts to starve people into working are not going to work. > main issue with UC is that it is too generous People at the foodbank are not going to agree with this. > scale of the underemployment is probably ~5m people...in a working population of 32m [citation needed] > don't invest in skills This I can agree on. > The UK has, literally, millions of people who need work The headline is "labour shortage"? There's no evidence of a vast hidden army of the unemployed, this isn't the 1980s.