3 ms·

Doubt it has a big impact. Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk lo

by Havoc 1y ago

Doubt it has a big impact. Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between. Brexit lead to more immigrants from poor countries but I doubt it moves the needle overall

graemep 1y ago
So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor? The big change has been that it has shifted the balance from unskilled to skilled immigration. Generally you need money or skills to get a UK residence visa. Brexit removed a huge exemption to that for people from the EU.
- Havoc 1y ago
  > So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor? Is that really what you got from my post? A brain dead apples and orange comparison? My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill…
  - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
    I'm not GP, but I took their comment as a provocative way of questioning your (unsourced) general claim "Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between."
  - graemep 1y ago
    > My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill It makes no sense to compare the aggregates in countries of origin rather than in the immigrant populations. Non EU immigrants tended to be higher skilled or well off because that is the only way they could get a visa. Unskilled immigrants could come in freely if they were from the EU and many did. Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants who replaced them is false if you assume skilled immigrants make a grater contribution.
    - Havoc 1y ago
      > Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants I suggest looking at the numbers instead of guessing (incorrectly). I’ll save you some time - it’s on page 4. see also page 57 - comparison to other studies finding the same. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfd2209e5274a0fce0e285f/The_Fiscal_Impact_of_Immigration_on_the_UK.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfd2209e5274...
      - constantius 1y ago
        Interesting analysis, thanks for posting. How much credence do you give it? I'm not an economist, and my general approach to any government's publications (especially in economics) is one of scepticism. Especially if it aligns with the party line (published in 2018, under May, who was very strongly anti-immigration). Edit: this isn't made by the government but by a university, so scepticism is lessened slightly.
        graemep 1y ago
        Oxford Economics is a consultancy company that is (historically?) linked to the university, not part of the university. See my other comment for specific criticisms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46013937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46013937
      - aceofspades19 1y ago
        This study doesn't prove what you said though. It just says that non-EU immigrants contribute less than EU immigrants on average. It also says that both EU and non-EU immigrants make a net contribution to the UK public finances on average. Non-EU immigrants It also clearly says that Non-EEA migrants are from any country outside of the EU which could include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
      - graemep 1y ago
        It says that non EEA immigrants are higher skilled than EEA (page 11) although immigrants from rich member states are higher skilled an non-EEA. It includes students. They clearly benefit the country by spending lots of money but they do not have income of their own (usually funded by parents) so pay little tax - but the subsidise universities by paying high fees, and inject money into the economy from living expenses on top of that. Fees alone can be many tens of thousands of pounds a year for a STEM subject at a good university (IIRC computer science at Oxford is £60k/year). The definition of overseas students also includes many British citizens, even some of those who have been back long enough to pay UK fees. It excludes visa fees, NHS charge etc. A lot of the revenue contribution is estimated. It says non-EEA immigrants make a much larger contribution then UK natives. The big expense for non-EEA immigrants is educational expenses because they have children. If those children remain in the UK as adults that is an investment and benefits the country in the long term. That reflects a fundamental flaw, in that it only looks at direct effects for revenue, not the total economic effect. A skilled worker is of far more value to the economy than just their taxes. On the other hand they do include "public good" as a cost. It looks very much like a consultancy company telling the client what they wanted to hear. It was commissioned when Theresa May, who was pro-EU and anti-non-EU-immigrant, was Prime Minister.
blibble 1y ago
the entire point is that it was supposed to have a big impact Boris said it himself in an interview: the treasury pushed for what has become known as the "Boriswave" because of inflationary wage pressures https://youtu.be/WlR1JSV45X4?t=1410 https://youtu.be/WlR1JSV45X4?t=1410 I think that interview is actually historically notable: the first example of a western leader saying that immigration was deliberately increased to push down wages

by Havoc 1y ago

graemep 1y ago

So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor? The big change has been that it has shifted the balance from unskilled to skilled immigration. Generally you need money or skills to get a UK residence visa. Brexit removed a huge exemption to that for people from the EU.

Havoc 1y ago
> So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor? Is that really what you got from my post? A brain dead apples and orange comparison? My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill…
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  I'm not GP, but I took their comment as a provocative way of questioning your (unsourced) general claim "Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between."
- graemep 1y ago
  > My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill It makes no sense to compare the aggregates in countries of origin rather than in the immigrant populations. Non EU immigrants tended to be higher skilled or well off because that is the only way they could get a visa. Unskilled immigrants could come in freely if they were from the EU and many did. Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants who replaced them is false if you assume skilled immigrants make a grater contribution.
  - Havoc 1y ago
    > Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants I suggest looking at the numbers instead of guessing (incorrectly). I’ll save you some time - it’s on page 4. see also page 57 - comparison to other studies finding the same. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfd2209e5274a0fce0e285f/The_Fiscal_Impact_of_Immigration_on_the_UK.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfd2209e5274...
    - constantius 1y ago
      Interesting analysis, thanks for posting. How much credence do you give it? I'm not an economist, and my general approach to any government's publications (especially in economics) is one of scepticism. Especially if it aligns with the party line (published in 2018, under May, who was very strongly anti-immigration). Edit: this isn't made by the government but by a university, so scepticism is lessened slightly.
      - graemep 1y ago
        Oxford Economics is a consultancy company that is (historically?) linked to the university, not part of the university. See my other comment for specific criticisms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46013937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46013937
    - aceofspades19 1y ago
      This study doesn't prove what you said though. It just says that non-EU immigrants contribute less than EU immigrants on average. It also says that both EU and non-EU immigrants make a net contribution to the UK public finances on average. Non-EU immigrants It also clearly says that Non-EEA migrants are from any country outside of the EU which could include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
    - graemep 1y ago
      It says that non EEA immigrants are higher skilled than EEA (page 11) although immigrants from rich member states are higher skilled an non-EEA. It includes students. They clearly benefit the country by spending lots of money but they do not have income of their own (usually funded by parents) so pay little tax - but the subsidise universities by paying high fees, and inject money into the economy from living expenses on top of that. Fees alone can be many tens of thousands of pounds a year for a STEM subject at a good university (IIRC computer science at Oxford is £60k/year). The definition of overseas students also includes many British citizens, even some of those who have been back long enough to pay UK fees. It excludes visa fees, NHS charge etc. A lot of the revenue contribution is estimated. It says non-EEA immigrants make a much larger contribution then UK natives. The big expense for non-EEA immigrants is educational expenses because they have children. If those children remain in the UK as adults that is an investment and benefits the country in the long term. That reflects a fundamental flaw, in that it only looks at direct effects for revenue, not the total economic effect. A skilled worker is of far more value to the economy than just their taxes. On the other hand they do include "public good" as a cost. It looks very much like a consultancy company telling the client what they wanted to hear. It was commissioned when Theresa May, who was pro-EU and anti-non-EU-immigrant, was Prime Minister.

blibble 1y ago

the entire point is that it was supposed to have a big impact Boris said it himself in an interview: the treasury pushed for what has become known as the "Boriswave" because of inflationary wage pressures https://youtu.be/WlR1JSV45X4?t=1410 https://youtu.be/WlR1JSV45X4?t=1410 I think that interview is actually historically notable: the first example of a western leader saying that immigration was deliberately increased to push down wages