Rejecting some myths about Immigrants

lisnageragh

jonny24ie wrote:

Yes I mean that the eastern europeans are helping our economy and are working legally etc but alot of people in this country think they aren't!!

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion?

How are the Eastern Europeans helping our economy?

wes

lisnageragh wrote:

How are the Eastern Europeans helping our economy?

What would you think would happen to our economy if they all went home tonight?

Fratton Fred

lisnageragh wrote:

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion?

How are the Eastern Europeans helping our economy?

Cheap labour helps keep inflation down, which is why I believe Britain and Ireland were hapy to accept them.

lisnageragh

wes wrote:

What would you think would happen to our economy if they all went home tonight?

You tell me.

I would imagine of course that the 90,000 unemployed Irish would have a better chance of finding work.

I imagine landlords would be in all sorts of problems because of the vast amounts of houses rented out to Eastern europeans.

I imagine house prices would fall because of the increase in empty housing.

I imagine School class sizes would fall because of the removal of migrant children.

I imagine that Hospitals would have less pressure on them reducing waiting times etc.

lisnageragh

Fratton Fred wrote:

Cheap labour helps keep inflation down, which is why I believe Britain and Ireland were hapy to accept them.

But isnt our inflation rising steadily?

And isnt it also a case there are many things rising in cost above inflations such as utilitys, petrol, food etc.

Many more sectors are now demanding wage increases in line with rising inflation, such as the nurses.

wes

lisnageragh wrote:

You tell me.

No, the economy would go to hell if all our immigrants were to up and leave.

As for the issues you point out, is it the fault of migrants the governments planning is dodgy?

lisnageragh

wes wrote:

No, the economy would go to hell if all our immigrants were to up and leave.

But why would it go to hell?



As for the issues you point out, is it the fault of migrants the governments planning is dodgy?

Both.

Even with a general election many parties still cant seem to understand that with a population increase we need to increase our planning and development.

Even now they talk about what must be done, but dont seem to understand the reasons that have caused it.

Migrants have done what anyone of us would do. So who can blame them for that. But at the same time they have left there own country deprived there country of vital services such as Doctors, Nurses, construction etc.

Surely if there country is going through a change such as Ireland did in the 90`s wont they all be needed back home?

I still firmly beleive that there should be government legislation that all employers seek recruitment from the Live register.

Only if nobody with relevant experience or qualifications can be found they then should seek employment from migrants.

This would still give the economy the vital workers it needs.

It would reduce the numbers out of work on the live register.

It would also give migrants the allowance to find work here only if there skills warranted it.

Then surely nobody could argue against migration as we would only have the migrants we needed.

I cant understand why we have Romanian beggers on the streets, This is of no benefit for them and certainly of no benefit for Ireland.

Would it not be better for all EU countries to provide x amount of EU investment to make Romaina a better place for all its people. Instead of them coming to Ireland to beg on our streets.

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

But does it not seem the tiniest little bit odd that such a disproportionate number come here?

No. It would seem odd if we could show that asylum seekers from any given nation tend not to follow such patterns - that a small number of nations (or only one) get a disproportionate number of them.

Consider that there are an estimatewd 35,000 Tamils in Switzerland. Compare that to the number in Ireland, and that should also seem odd, no? Why is Ireland getting a disproportionately small number of Tamil asylum seekers? How many other nations do you think we can identify where we get a below-average number of applicants?

Consider that Ireland, like Nigeria is a Catholic-speaking nation, and that there would in the past have been some degree of Irish influence in the sense that Nigeria has had an Irish missionary presence for quite some time. There have been historical ties between the two nations, as evidenced (at elast) by the presence of Nigerian students in Ireland dating back to the fifties.

Consider also that it is an identified trend that asylum seekers tend to prefer to travel to nations where there is already a community of their own than nations with a lower presence (source : Irish Refugee Council, referncing UNHCR findings, available here.

Consider that the same fact-sheet acknowledges that different countries tend to accept refugees from different nations to differing levels, so a Somalian, for example, might have a better chance in England (86% to our 12% in that case). While the full set of figures isn't on the fact-sheet, it suggests that there may be a higher-than-average acceptance of Nigerian cases in Ireland.

The reality is that if you look at trend patterns, then you find that for one reason or another, asylum seekers from any given country do not end up uniformly spread across recipient nations.

So do I think its odd that we can identify a nationality which is disproportionately focussing on Ireland? No, I don't. Mathematically, I'd expect it, in fact.

What I'd find odd is if we could show that a disproportionate number of nationalities were focussing on Ireland...either too many or too few. No-one here has made that case. I'd find it odd if the asylum seekers from any nation didn't follow the established "disproportionate" path and instead were scattered evenly across the globe.

bonkey

lisnageragh wrote:

How are the Eastern Europeans helping our economy?

The number of people employed in the Irish economy is currently greater than the entire employable Irish workforce would be were there no immigration.

Compare the employment figures pre-celtic-tiger to the workforce figures today, and you'll see that roughly twice as many people are employed. For this to not require immigration would require an unemployment rate of about 50% in the late 80s.

Its difficult to see how arguing that these people are not helping the economy, when it couldn't be at the level its at without them.

lisnageragh

bonkey wrote:

The number of people employed in the Irish economy is currently greater than the entire employable Irish workforce would be were there no immigration.

Compare the employment figures pre-celtic-tiger to the workforce figures today, and you'll see that roughly twice as many people are employed. For this to not require immigration would require an unemployment rate of about 50% in the late 80s.

Its difficult to see how arguing that these people are not helping the economy, when it couldn't be at the level its at without them.

The celtic tiger has been booming since the 1990`s.
Eastern Europeans have only been here since 2004.

I cant see how in just three years you think our Economy has been created because of immigration?

With that in mind I think your argument is flawed, otherwise why did our economy do well in the 1990`s?

And many commentators are now saying the economy is about to take a nosedive, so then if this is true surely that would say that immigration could have also damaged the economy if we were doing well upto 2004 and now in a downturn.

bonkey

lisnageragh wrote:

The celtic tiger has been booming since the 1990`s.
Eastern Europeans have only been here since 2004.

Not true. Eastern Europeans have had freedom of movement since 2004. I think you'll find that there were already considerable numbers of them here under work-permit schemes.

I cant see how in just three years you think our Economy has been created because of immigration?

Who said I thought that? Immigration has sustained or economy.

With that in mind I think your argument is flawed, otherwise why did our economy do well in the 1990`s?

Look at the employment figures. Ireland's economy in the 90s was already reliant on immigration.

It had to be as it couldn't have outgrown the workforce otherwise.

In the early 90s, Ireland had net emigration. By the late 90s, there was net immigration. This trend has continued, approximately keeping pace with the growth in our employment figures.

In otherwords, since the late 90s, inwards migration has been a key factor in fuelling our economy. This hasn't stopped. So even if you were correct that the Eastern Europeans have only been here 3 years, then for 3 years they have sustained the growth of our economy.

And many commentators are now saying the economy is about to take a nosedive,

Experts, as they say, have successfully predicted 14 of the last 3 recessions.

Critics have been saying that our economic success couldn't last since it started picking up. They may be right. After all, Ireland has had the strongest economy in Europe every year for well over a decade now...such a position is impossible to keep indefinitely.

However, that a downturn may be imminent does not suggest that immigration is to blame. If anything, immigration has held off the downturn up to now.

so then if this is true surely that would say that immigration could have also damaged the economy if we were doing well upto 2004 and now in a downturn.

If we're about to take a downturn thats not a knock-on of a world-wide downturn, then its because we've lost enough of our competetive edge to the point that we've outgrown the point where our economy is sustainable.

This typically happens through factors such as wages being too high. The complaint about immigrants is that they drive wages down. You can't have both - that we're paid too much to be competetive, but its the fault of the workers coming in from abroad who'll work for less then us.

Fratton Fred

bonkey wrote:

If we're about to take a downturn thats not a knock-on of a world-wide downturn, then its because we've lost enough of our competetive edge to the point that we've outgrown the point where our economy is sustainable.

This typically happens through factors such as wages being too high. The complaint about immigrants is that they drive wages down. You can't have both - that we're paid too much to be competetive, but its the fault of the workers coming in from abroad who'll work for less then us.

that was my point. some of the irresponsible pay demands at the moment is only going to damage Irelands cost effectiveness. Dell, HP, Intel and the host of Pharma companies which have helped drive the economy, aren't here because they love Ireland, they are here because it is cost effective to manufacture here. When wages get too high they will all piss of to Poland and exploit the tax breaks and low wages there.

All the time we have eastern europeans here willing to work for minimum wage, we remain competitive.

lisnageragh

bonkey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisnageragh

The celtic tiger has been booming since the 1990`s.
Eastern Europeans have only been here since 2004.


Not true. Eastern Europeans have had freedom of movement since 2004. I think you'll find that there were already considerable numbers of them here under work-permit schemes.

Have they? Are you saying Europe and Ireland granted free movement to Poland, Latvia etc before 2004? Are we now doing the same for all the other hopefuls wanting to join the EU?

And if what you claim is true, I certainly cant see how you feel there were considerable numbers of them already here!

Where do you get these figures from? What are your sources? How many work permits have been handed out to Eastern Europeans pre 2004 compared to how many Eastern Europeans now working here?

Quote:
I cant see how in just three years you think our Economy has been created because of immigration?


Who said I thought that? Immigration has sustained or economy.

Based on the fact that eastern European countries have only been granted freedom to work in Ireland without any restrictions since 2004. You claim that our economy owes itself to migrant workers. But they have only been here in large numbers since 2004. Unless you can provide proof of evidence to say that there were equally the same amount or more pre 2004.

Quote:
With that in mind I think your argument is flawed, otherwise why did our economy do well in the 1990`s?


Look at the employment figures. Ireland's economy in the 90s was already reliant on immigration.

It had to be as it couldn't have outgrown the workforce otherwise.

In the early 90s, Ireland had net emigration. By the late 90s, there was net immigration. This trend has continued, approximately keeping pace with the growth in our employment figures.

In otherwords, since the late 90s, inwards migration has been a key factor in fuelling our economy. This hasn't stopped. So even if you were correct that the Eastern Europeans have only been here 3 years, then for 3 years they have sustained the growth of our economy.

I really dont understand why you think Ireland has been reliant on immigration during the 1990`s? Sure we may have needed highly skilled workers to fill the gaps but you surely cant be comparing to the large influx of migrants since 2004 to pre 2004?

We still have nearly 90,000 unemployed, we still have nearly 150,000 on the live register can you say that some or all of these people couldnt be doing some of the jobs that migrants now do?

Isnt it the job of Government to lower unemployment, but yet since 2004 it has remained around the same. Surely they isnt good for the economy?

Wouldnt it be better for the economy to start lowering unemployment? Wouldnt that make up more competitve?

There is no evidence that I can find to say that migrants plough all there money back into our economy, but there is evidence that we do spend millions on social benefits, child benefits going abroad and so on.

Quote:
And many commentators are now saying the economy is about to take a nosedive,


Experts, as they say, have successfully predicted 14 of the last 3 recessions.

Critics have been saying that our economic success couldn't last since it started picking up. They may be right. After all, Ireland has had the strongest economy in Europe every year for well over a decade now...such a position is impossible to keep indefinitely.

However, that a downturn may be imminent does not suggest that immigration is to blame. If anything, immigration has held off the downturn up to now.

So if our nation does take a downturn do you think all Immigrants will pack up and go home?

Or will they become a even bigger strain on the social benefit system in Ireland and jobs are lost throughout? Or will employers still seek lower wages in a bid to survive the downturn that will see more and more Irish workers loose out to cheaper labour?

Quote:
so then if this is true surely that would say that immigration could have also damaged the economy if we were doing well upto 2004 and now in a downturn.

If we're about to take a downturn thats not a knock-on of a world-wide downturn, then its because we've lost enough of our competetive edge to the point that we've outgrown the point where our economy is sustainable.

This typically happens through factors such as wages being too high. The complaint about immigrants is that they drive wages down. You can't have both - that we're paid too much to be competetive, but its the fault of the workers coming in from abroad who'll work for less then u

So thats fair to the Irish is it? We have to except lower wages or loose out to migrant workers? What about the cost of living in Ireland? Surely to keep up with rising costs you need to have rising wages and benefits.

House prices rise to the surge in demand, but the demand wouldnt be as great if landlords were buying on mass to buy to let.

Its all about supply and demand, increase the population costs go up, to cover increases in housing, food, services etc.

Without the population increase we have less demand which in turn would lower costs which would also result in cheaper prices.

bonkey

lisnageragh wrote:

Are you saying Europe and Ireland granted free movement to Poland, Latvia etc before 2004?

No, I'm saying we granted them entry under our existing immigration systems....the same systems that allow non-EU citizens to work in the country today.

There were no shortage of threads here in 2005 from people crying out about the tens of thousands who apparently entered Ireland in 2004, only to be informed that they were misreading the figures and that the vast majority of those were workers who had previously legally entered the country and who were effectively registering their change of status now that they were no longer subject to visa restrictions etc.

Are we now doing the same for all the other hopefuls wanting to join the EU?

I don't know.

I would doubt it, given that we don't have a shortage of workers with freedom of movement willing to fill our market. We did then, and our government (rightly) recognised that it would be beneficial to grant work-permits to those applicants from the to-be-member states rather than have a short-term shortfall in the labour supply.

And if what you claim is true, I certainly cant see how you feel there were considerable numbers of them already here!

Where do you get these figures from? What are your sources? How many work permits have been handed out to Eastern Europeans pre 2004 compared to how many Eastern Europeans now working here?

As I said...there were no shortage of threads here in '04 and '05 about the number of eastern-european immigrants already in the country. I'm mostly working from memory. Some quick googling confirmed my belief that immigration has been net-positive since the mid-to-late 90s.

If thats not good enough for you, then I'll see if I can find smoething more substantial later on when I've more time...if Victor or one of the other regulars doesn't supply it in the meantime.

Based on the fact that eastern European countries have only been granted freedom to work in Ireland without any restrictions since 2004. You claim that our economy owes itself to migrant workers.

Again, thats not what I've said.

Immigration has been net-positive since the mid-90s. Our economy has been reliant on immigration since that point, both in sustaining growth and in keeping competetiveness. Please don't confuse immigration and freedom of movement. Before the Eastern-European expansion of the EU, Ireland was still able to grant work permits to Eastern Europeans. Freedom of Movement and Immigration are seperate - albeit related - points.

But they have only been here in large numbers since 2004. Unless you can provide proof of evidence to say that there were equally the same amount or more pre 2004.

Lets say you're right. That would mean that for the last 3 years, the evidence supports my argument. For the previous years, we still had net immigration from somewhere and that also supports my argument. Prior to that, we had rapidly-decreasing levels of unemployment and that supports my argument.

If you want to believe that they only arrived in 2004 and there were no significant numbers of Eastern Europeans here prior to that, then you're still arguing that they have propped up our economy for the last three years. All we're disagreeing on here is how long they've been doing it, not whether or not its been happening.

I really dont understand why you think Ireland has been reliant on immigration during the 1990`s?

Let me reiterate...

In the early 90s, we had net emigration. We weren't reliant on immigration.
In the mid 90s, that turned and we had net immigration. The growth of our economy since that point has kept pace with the growth of our employment numbers, which has kept pace with the growth of our job-force.

There is only one model which supports that correlation, and that is the model where immigration was feeding the growth of our economy.

Sure we may have needed highly skilled workers to fill the gaps but you surely cant be comparing to the large influx of migrants since 2004 to pre 2004?

2 minutes googling found me this. Its worth reading, especially considering its from October 2004, but here's some choice paragraphs:

Consequently, non-Irish migrants, especially from outside the EU-15, have driven most of the recent growth in Ireland's immigration.
...
Among the various categories of non-EU nationals coming to Ireland in recent years, the great majority have been workers (about 100,000 during 2000-2003),
...
the number of work permits issued to non-EEA nationals increased dramatically from 5,750 in 1999 to 47,707 in 2003,
...
Furthermore, about three out of four permits issued over the past few years were for employment in relatively low-skilled and/or low-wage occupations, especially in the service sector.


Now...you tell me...which is this supporting? Your only-high-skilled-jobs-in-only-small numbers-prior-to-2004 theory? Or my allegation that we were "importing" large numbers from outside the EU prior to 2004, and that they were driving our economy?

We still have nearly 90,000 unemployed, we still have nearly 150,000 on the live register can you say that some or all of these people couldnt be doing some of the jobs that migrants now do?

Sure they can. Many of them choose not to for one reason or another. Some don't want to work. Some don't want to go where the work is. Some of them are simply not chosen because migrants are willing to work harder.

And yes, some are just plain hard done by...but you know what...some would be plain hard done by even if we didn't have immigrants here at all. Thats one of the reasons why Full Employment has never been defined as 100% employment.

Isnt it the job of Government to lower unemployment, but yet since 2004 it has remained around the same. Surely they isnt good for the economy?

What do you want them to do?

Withdraw from the EU so no-one has freedom of movement, and return to the days of massive unemployment we had before we got into the club?

Deny the freedom of movement that has been central to our economy that got where it is today?

The government have done a pretty good job in creating an environment which has given employment growth, kept competitiveness, and given us year-on-year the strongest economy in the EU.

Wouldnt it be better for the economy to start lowering unemployment? Wouldnt that make up more competitve?

There is no evidence that I can find to say that migrants plough all there money back into our economy,

I would hope they're not. I would hope they're ploughing some back into the economy and sending some back home to help their native economies grow. In the long run, thats best for them and us.

So if our nation does take a downturn do you think all Immigrants will pack up and go home?

I think if there's better job opportunities elsewhere, then those who want to work will go where the work is. That includes the Irish as well as the immigrants....or do you not remember the mass emigration of the 80s and before? To believe otherwise requires that we believe those who came here didn't come here to work...but the evidence of our employment figures shows that simply isn't true. Our workforce is twice the size it was prior to the Tiger economy.

Or will they become a even bigger strain on the social benefit system in Ireland and jobs are lost throughout? Or will employers still seek lower wages in a bid to survive the downturn that will see more and more Irish workers loose out to cheaper labour?

So start campaigning for Ireland to withdraw from the EU. Campaign for us to lose the attraction we have as an entry-point to that market. Thats the only way you can deny freedom of movement to EU nationals and they're the people you're apparently worried about. Of course, how you think thats going to benefit our economy is beyond me, but hey...its your suggestion, not mine.

So thats fair to the Irish is it? We have to except lower wages or loose out to migrant workers?

What do you think would be fairer? That we had higher wages faster, and that our economy fell apart years ago because we were simply too expensive?

Do you think a return to 20% unemployment would be fairer on the Irish, as long as we didn't have any immigrants driving down wage costs?

What about the cost of living in Ireland? Surely to keep up with rising costs you need to have rising wages and benefits.

And rising wages lead to more disposable income, which in turn leads to rising costs. Spot a problem there?

House prices rise to the surge in demand, but the demand wouldnt be as great if landlords were buying on mass to buy to let.

Go check when house prices started to surge. They surged when people started having more available cash en masse due to the increased good fortune that the Tiger Economy brought and started outbidding each other for limited resources (houses). This predated the most significant increases in immigration by a year or so. People were buying houses to resell in 18 months.

Furthermore, a certain quantity of the boom was a natural readjustment. Houses were underpriced.

Today, the cost of a mortgage is greater then the rent you can get for the house.

The cost of housing is not something you can lay at the immigrants feet, particularly when you're complaining that they're taking the low-end jobs and working for so little, and at the same time saying that houses are so expensive. If they're expensive its because enough people had the money to pay for them. Those people can't be the ones who are also driving everyone else's wages down, can they?

Its all about supply and demand, increase the population costs go up, to cover increases in housing, food, services etc.

You have the cart before the horse. The population increased beacuse there was demand for workers. Costs increased because there was an increase in wages.

The competitiveness introduced by the immigrant workforce is one of hte key factors that stopped it spiralling upwards even faster, and if our economy is on the verge of a downturn its because we've still spiralled too far.

Teh economy won't crash because a pint is so expensive. It'll crash because you're paid enough to afford such an expensive pint. Thats not the fault of those who are being blamed for keeping wages down.

Without the population increase we have less demand which in turn would lower costs which would also result in cheaper prices.

Without the population, you wouldn't be able to fill the job positions. What effect do you think that might have on the economy?

OPENROAD

lisnageragh wrote:

You tell me.

I would imagine of course that the 90,000 unemployed Irish would have a better chance of finding work.

I imagine landlords would be in all sorts of problems because of the vast amounts of houses rented out to Eastern europeans.

I imagine house prices would fall because of the increase in empty housing.

I imagine School class sizes would fall because of the removal of migrant children.

I imagine that Hospitals would have less pressure on them reducing waiting times etc.

So what exactly is your point, are you saying that we look after our own unemployed first?
Are you saying that we stop the free movement of European workers?

lisnageragh

OPENROAD wrote:

So what exactly is your point, are you saying that we look after our own unemployed first?
Are you saying that we stop the free movement of European workers?

Yes to question 1.

and in respect of question 2, did not every western european nation except Ireland the UK and Sweden not restrict the free movement of european workers?

Why then cant we? with the exception of taking those with skills we need.

InFront

Most of those restrictions are now gone throughout Western Europe. Ireland was wise enough not to bother with them at all.

OPENROAD

lisnageragh wrote:

Yes to question 1.

and in respect of question 2, did not every western european nation except Ireland the UK and Sweden not restrict the free movement of european workers?

Why then cant we? with the exception of taking those with skills we need.

and what happens to those Europeans already working here?

Sir Oxman

bonkey wrote:

The number of countries who are not party to the Dublin accords vastly outnumbers those who are....but you never limited yourself to that small minority of countries, referring instead to "another safe country".

haven't read further than your post but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Convention

At least 15 EU nations.
None of which are the recent members whose diaspora we lovingly embrace.

Fact is, all established EU states are in accord with Dublin II.

InFront

What do "Established" vs new EU states have to do with it?

It's about asylum, you don't get Czech asylum seekers; and asylum seekers don't have to pass through the EU, let alone those signatories to Dublin.