Article

2008-03-31 Britain

Migration has brought 'zero' economic benefit

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-03-31 08:12|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 The problem is, you bring in one person to work a low paying job, his wife and kids come in, and you spend the equivalent of a upper middle class salary in welfare and socialist benefits to his ENTIRE family.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-31 09:27|| 2008-03-31 09:27|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem is not immigration. The problem is that employers want to bring in people who will work below a living wage. The key is the living wage. If employers do not pay a living wage, then society will have to pick up the tab to pay for what these people can not: subsidized housing, medical, schools, free food, etc.

This is the same problem we have here in America. Individually, employers can get cheap labor but in the big picture our humanitarian societies then get stuck footing the bill for all of the costs that the employers wage does not permit.

There is such a thing as a living wage: If the employer doesn't pay it, someone else ends up footing the bill unless the rest of us are willing to accept abject poverty and starvation resulting around us.

Posted by Woodrow Slusorong7967 2008-03-31 10:46|| 2008-03-31 10:46|| Front Page Top

#3 There is such a thing as a living wage: If the employer doesn't pay it, someone else ends up footing the bill

Somebody else ends up footing the bill in any case. Do you think the money comes from the Payroll Fairy?

Posted by Pappy 2008-03-31 12:54|| 2008-03-31 12:54|| Front Page Top

#4 Woodrow - I've noticed that the few places that pay a so-called "living wage" (that is, way above market wages) all seem to be public entities (such as cities).

So, they're not paying the above-market wages out of their own pockets but out of the taxpayers' (i.c., other people's) pockets.

Using other people's money to feel good about themselves. Yup, they're all ~~Democrats~~ librul. :-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-31 13:07|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-03-31 13:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Another issue is the amount of money sent overseas to support relatives rather than spent locally and reintroduced into the economy. If you balanced that by cutting foreign aid payments this might be nothing, but otherwise it should be tallied as a negative.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-03-31 14:11|| 2008-03-31 14:11|| Front Page Top

#6 DV: The problem is, you bring in one person to work a low paying job, his wife and kids come in, and you spend the equivalent of a upper middle class salary in welfare and socialist benefits to his ENTIRE family.

It's worse than that. They bring in their grandparents, who then get on Medicaid, food stamps and SSI. Basically, businesses that employ illegals get a subsidy from other taxpayers. If they had to foot the full cost of their benefits, businesses that employ illegals wouldn't do so. It was Milton Friedman who said that mass immigration is incompatible with the welfare state. He was right.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2008-03-31 15:14|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-03-31 15:14|| Front Page Top

23:49 JosephMendiola
23:18 JohnQC
23:11 JohnQC
23:09 JohnQC
23:08 JohnQC
23:07 Glenmore
23:06 Steve White
23:04 Hillary
22:58 JohnQC
22:55 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:39 eltoroverde
22:30 Injun Unereck9646
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:23 Nanook of the North (the little Eskimo boy)
22:22 Spoluse Ghibelline1686
22:21 Unique Battle
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:15 Thush Gonque
22:06 BA
21:51 Skunky Glins5285
21:50 BA
21:38 JDB
21:30 Pappy
21:26 Pappy