Even your own figures for the alleged benefits are feeble: 1.25 – 1.5% increase in GNP as a result of a 1% population increase ! Stuff it ! This may make me theoretically better off, but economics largely ignores quality of life: concreting over one’s favourite walk through the nearby countryside in exchange for a .25 -.5% increase in wages is an exchange that only dimwits would accept. Nor do I want the import of hoards of Muslims: the world of Islam is backward, undemocratic, prone to kill anyone who disagrees with it (e.g. Salmon Rushdie), it suppresses women, and is homophobic. Islam was an admirable movement a thousand years ago, but nowadays it’s a religion for thickos, as some French politician recently put it.

As distinct from mass immigration, the movement of a small number of people with specific skills from countries where their skills are in temporary surplus to countries where there is a temporary shortage obviously benefits the World as a whole. Not even the BNP (of which I am a member) object to this.

Owen replies: I want to make it clear that I profoundly disagree with this comment, which I find offensive and disgusting. I considered deleting it; but decided to leave it, in part to illustrate the point that the argument put by Polly Tonybee is one which may appeal to BNP members, like Ralph, but it appeals to fears and prejudices which most decent citizens abhor. In general, members of the BNP peddling this sort of bile are not welcome here, and I reserve the right to delete similar comments in future.

So if that is Polly Toynbee’s source, it explains why she is wrong.

Following you to your own blog, I see that hsbguzzler continues to refuse to read evidence or arguments put in front of him, and whats more argues that you have a “lack of evidence” when he’s only failed to even glance at the copious amount which you’ve provided. Some people refuse to listen. More’s the pity. Well, you tried your best. Very nice set of links to papers, I must say.

Unlike bloggers like, say, Tim Worstall, more often than not I find myself in broad agreement with lefty Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. But at times her arguments give me pause. A case in point is Tuesday’s piece, Of course the wealthy want an immi…

The ‘lump of labour’ being an incorrect concept may be true as you say (though the PIU article does not give evidence to discredit it), but Id argue that this could only true in the longer terms, after many years. In the real world, I still say that a migrant taking a natives job will cause that native to have a period of unemployment. Additionally whilst there may be some expansion in that sector, I still believe the extra supply of labour will outstrip the expansion, and thus the wages will decrease.

In the PIU paragraph 6.32, the article tries to use particular job sectors to justify its argument – I will tell you the truth of what is happening in those sectors;
HEALTH: Rather than invest in educating British born doctors, Britain has decided it is cheaper to import them. There are a generation of British who have missed out on the opportunity to be a doctor. The supply of nurses has been flooded with migrants and their pay and working conditions are much worse than before. Not many English people can afford to study for nursing for 3 years and incur a student debt, only to get poor wages, on top of the undesirable shift patterns, the increasing violence in the workplace and the overall lack of respect or support. The customers (the patients) have no choice but to be cared for by someone who they don’t neccessarily relate to (particularly for older people) sometimes with an inadequate grasp of the English language (My wife who is a nurse has seen people struggling to understand the dialect of a nurse who is telling them that their loved one has died). The answer would be to make the job more attractive to natives by paying them more.
EDUCATION: I think we have plenty of people within this country who would make wonderful teachers, but because a degree is necessary, and getting a degree was often not possible for that person due to economic reasons, they are basically being cast aside for qualified migrants.
IT: My profession. There has been a complete lack of a cohesive training plan in any of the private sector companies I have worked for (something the govt should have encouraged): they see it as far more cost effective to hire already qualified overseas labour. This has resulted in many people being stuck with dinosaur skills, and finding themselves pretty much unemployable. The supply of IT workers by far outstrips demand (talk to any of the recruitment agencies), and yet we are fed this lie that the IT industry is understaffed and we need to import more migrants.
CATERING: Pretty much a minimum wage occupation, the wages will not become decent until the supply of workers in this sector shrinks.
AGRICULTURAL LABOUR: What could be more English than to toil in the meadows. Not anymore a choice, as the wages are now minimum, and it largely given to gangs of Eastern Europeans.
I don’t have a dark political agenda, I am just showing you the honest facts as I see them; I really do not see the benefit of immigrants to the lower paid, and dont like to see this imaginary benefit used as a justification for immigration.

Owen replies: The idea that a person has can be unemployed because “an immigrant has taken his job for less wages” is a classic case of the lump of labour fallacy (the mistake of thinking that there is only so much work to be done). You say that my assertions are not backed up: this seems a strange thing to say when I have provided a series of links to studies which both explain the theory and provide the evidence. Please don’t hesitate to return to the comments when you have had a chance to look at David Card’s paper on the US or the PIU report on the UK if there are aspects of those studies that you don’t agree with.