1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Bank of England confirms immigration leads to lower wages for almost a 1/4 of Britons

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Horatio_Blows, Dec 26, 2015.

  1. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    The Bank of England has confirmed that immigration leads to lower wages for almost a quarter of Britons. In a side-swipe at other studies which deny the link between immigration and lower wages for native British people, the study highlights the deliberate ignoring of empirical data.

    "This paper asks whether immigration has any impact on wages. It answers this question by considering the variation of wages and immigration across regions, occupations, and time. Occupations turn out to be a relatively important dimension. Once the occupational

    breakdown is incorporated into a regional analysis of immigration, the immigrant-native ratio has a significant small impact on the average occupational wage rates of that region.


    Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay. Where immigrants come from —EU or non-EU —appears to have no impact on our economy wide results; with the impact within the semi/unskilled
    services sector being small.

    These findings accord well with intuition and anecdotal evidence, but do not seem to have been recorded previously in the empirical literature. "
     
    Cantandmorecant likes this.
  2. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

  3. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    I dispute your headline. Using the study you provided:

    1. The abstract states: 'We find that the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on average British wage.', p.2.

    2. On page 4, it again states: 'the immigrants native ratio has a significant, small, negative impact'

    TBC...
     
  4. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    On occupation. The conclusion states "Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay."
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  5. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    The report concludes with the following: 'Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the unskilled/semi skilled service sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay'. page 24. It continues: '....the impact is small’.

    In between the abstract and its conclusion, the study is fascinating in its detail, but can you direct me to the specific page or reference that supports your headline?
     
    Duke of York likes this.
  6. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Crossed posts!

    Even if the entire semi/unskilled sector was/were immigrants, 100% - if we both accept 10% immigrants = 2% reduction of wages in that sector (since the study focused on occupations), would be a 20% reduction in that industry, not overall. Therefore 1/4th of all British native incomes aren't influenced?

    (I am doing this on my phone so having to go back and forth)
     
  7. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Whenever I read comments about migrants, I think about America, a place that migrants flocked to and became the wealthiest on the planet as a consequence and incidentally, a land that is among the most fiercely patriotic you will find. How do you work that out?
     
    sabrinakat likes this.
  8. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    On page 23 in reference to skilled production workers, the impact is 1.68 but the benefit is 1.13 so 'the impact of immigration is largely accounted for'.....( so no real impact in relation to that occupation).


    Ah, found it - on page 7, it states 1 in three in unskilled is an immigrant, so 33% = 2 (being the decrease as noted above per 10% ) x 6-7% reduction in wages in that sector. So, again, it doesn't add up.

    Sorry for the broken bits, have to close this window, open the download and go back and forth)
     
  9. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    Indeed. A bit too quick to disagree weren't you?

    Which it isn't so it's pointless surmising on that basis. Which in turn renders the rest of your post pointless too.
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  10. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    It was a very interesting paper - I dispute your headline, but thank you for putting the source on your original post, so we could discuss it.

    Off to bed!

    Good night and good luck! (a like to the first poster who can correctly identify who said that)
     
  11. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    The impact is on low skilled and unskilled occupations. How did you miss that?

    You are using the wrong calculation which is why it doesn't add up for you. Why are you trying so hard to argue with financial experts?
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  12. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    Of course you would. Despite it being correct. Is it the findings you can't accept?
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  13. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    The headline is correct. There is nothing to dispute. Get back to me when you have reached the conclusion which I've already posted.

    Good night.
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  14. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    A bit too fast on 'liking' a mistake there Duke.
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  15. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Take a look at the post right before this snarky post of yours. On page 7, the authors argue that 1 in 3 in one sector were immigrants = 3.3 x 2% = a 6-7% decrease in that one sector (unskilled workers). So, NOT 1/4 of all jobs. Other sectors mentioned stated the opposite and the differences were about even.

    Your headline is wrong as I initially stated - the evidence you provided clearly shows that.
     
  16. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Your mistake - read the abstract, conclusion, page 23 and pages 7-8.
     
  17. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Incidentally, all my posts quoted the evidence from the report - I absolutely agree with the evidence from the financial experts from the report given. I asked you to provide the evidence to support your headline; you haven't. Where is this formula you are referring to? Please do so, as I have above.

    Thanks!
     
  18. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    The snarkyness is all yours. I've read the report and disagree with your conjectures. I ask again

    And

     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  19. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    The evidence clearly shows the headline is correct. I'm sorry if you're unable to understand it.
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.
  20. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    No. Your mistake. Try reading the entire report as I have. Then get back to me if you wish to discuss further.
     
    Cantandmorecant and Tom_Pubes like this.

Share This Page