2007 November 13 Tuesday
Employment Of Natives Declines In Britain

Immigrants are pushing natives out of the British labor market.

In 1996, the last full year of Conservative government, the official projection for net immigration was 65,000 a year.

This September, the Office of National Statistics revised its projection from 145,000 a year to 190,000.

Gross immigration since 1997 has been 4.4 million, net immigration 1.6 million.

Most new jobs now go to immigrants.

It also admitted that 52 per cent of the new jobs in this period have gone to immigrants and that the number of British citizens in work is falling.

I can understand the free market capitalist motive to wage war on native workers. But when did the British Labour Party become the tool of class warfare against the working class?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 November 13 11:01 PM  Immigration Labor Market


Comments
Kenelm Digby said at November 14, 2007 4:22 AM:

'But when did the British Labour Party bcome the tool of class warfare against the working class' - Why, since when Tony Blair took over.

Wolf-Dog said at November 14, 2007 6:13 AM:

I wonder what percentage of the immigrants in U.K. are of Pakistani or Middle Eastern origin, and what percentage of them are of East European origin (Russian, Polish, Baltic, etc.) It is possible that many high I.Q. people from Italy and Spain may have immigrated to Britain to work because of the recent economic success there.

No racism is is intended in my comments, but if it is true that the employment of natives is declining due to immigrants in Britain, then it follows that the average (or median) quality of immigrants in U.K. cannot be that low, since if they were all uneducated people looking for low level jobs, then the natives would not face too much competition.

At the risk of being perceived as a Cynic. I will go as far as saying that the mass immigration of uneducated and unskilled people to the United States, is actually a boon to the well educated people here, because not only these unskilled immigrants cannot compete with the skilled Americans for the good jobs, but our welfare system would hire a lot of smart people to take care of these immigrants, creating millions of extra jobs for skilled Americans.

TJ said at November 14, 2007 6:56 AM:

Immigration undercuts wages of just about everyone, except the elites. The US is not (or at least should not) be run for the benefit of foreigners who want to come to work. Our nation was doing just fine before this massive 3rd world immigration madness and the work got done and people who were Americans made good money doing it. It wasn't like the nation's lawns went uncut before Mexicans showed up. Billions wouldn't be sent out of the country for remittances either, not to mntion the crime, disease and social pathology these people bring. We have enough of that already. You have obviously not heard of the HB-1 visa fiasco either. Plenty of skilled American have lost jobs to that. Also, many of these wonderful, intelligent skilled immigrants to England are believers in a violent, misogynist, anti-western, anti-every-other-religion, terror supporting, dog hating, honor killing desert cult with a penchant for suicide bombing and throat slitting. We also have these wonderful people in the US as well, except instead of bombing the subway(not that they wouldn't do it if they could), they fly planes into buildings, shoot ticketing agents at airports, drive their cars through crowds and finance their asshole compatriots abroad while having their PR arm (CAIR) whine about how bad muslims have it and how nobody like them (I wonder why?).

"...but our welfare system would hire a lot of smart people to take care of these immigrants, creating millions of extra jobs for skilled Americans."

I don't even know how to respond to this. So an expanding the already massive, fraudulent welfare system in which skilled people have to take care of stupid and uneducated (and uneducatable) 3rd worlders is a good idea? Those would be "good" jobs? Have you applied for a position yet? Try teaching at an inner city school full of stupid, lazy and violent minorities. You are simply a warden, but without the back-up. That is fucked up and a waste of human capability. Wouldn't it be better if skilled and smart people did something like inventing, creating, maintaining, teaching and working to make our nation and lives better and that actually produces a return on the investment or makes useful, entertaining or beautiful things? That is if you could call the welfare state an investment.

Hal K said at November 14, 2007 8:56 AM:

Wolf-Dog

I have read numerous news stories over the past few years that say that new jobs created by the U.S. economy tend to go to immigrants. This includes construction work. Here is an example I just found by searching for "new jobs" at steinreport.com:

As New Jobs Go To Immigrants, Wages Suffer

This includes construction work, where I doubt IQ plays as much of a role as the willingness to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions, etc.

At the risk of being perceived as a Cynic. I will go as far as saying that the mass immigration of uneducated and unskilled people to the United States, is actually a boon to the well educated people here...

I would not say you were a cynic, unless you tend to identify with people who make their livings looking after the needs of the poor. I suppose I would include doctors in this category. I agree with TJ that it is actually the opposite of a boon to the current citizens and their descendants on the whole. Since you seem to be appealing to the self-interests of the well educated, I suggest that you read the section about "class self-interest" in this link provided in the original blog post. You seem to be arguing in favor of class warfare waged by the rich against everyone else. Perhaps the problem is that for whatever reason you don't identify with all of your fellow citizens but rather only with the rich, or perhaps just a subset of the rich for that matter.

Historians have observed that ... A nation emerges as a people begin to believe that the group or the “nation” is more significant than class and status. The immigration issue shows us that this process can work in reverse as well. Just don't be too optimistic about the end result of the reverse process you seem to be favoring.

Wolf-Dog said at November 14, 2007 11:19 AM:

"You seem to be arguing in favor of class warfare waged by the rich against everyone else."
--------------------------------------

This is not the case. My views are more to the left, and I even voted for Clinton (initially, not the second time), but I like to create controversy by revealing (at least speculating about) the motivations of the elite who want to increase the immigration of unskilled people (I am not part of that elite.)

But returning to the main subject, unless I am totally misinformed, probably most jobs in U.K. are not (were not) construction jobs like (it used to be) in the United States, because U.K. is an older country with a smaller growth of population, and therefore I believe that the immigrants in U.K. are probably taking away better jobs from the natives. My whole speculation was that perhaps the many of the immigrants in U.K. are more educated and skilled East Europeans and South Europeans.

Dave said at November 14, 2007 12:46 PM:

Not only are migrants getting the jobs, the majority of new jobs are in the public sectors so the natives are paying for them to do it. I don't have a link it was reported on TV a week or two ago.

The Labour party has been against the poor long before Blair came to power although I agree he was a total bastard. All socialist organisations need plently of poor people around for their own continued existance.

wolf-dog, aren't you forgetting affirmative action?
In Britain, they invited millions of minorities into the country and then call us racist if those minorities are employed at a lower than average rate. There are huge campaigns to employ minorities throughout society, even the firebrigade has to have special equality officers to insure 'opportunities'.

Wolf-Dog said at November 14, 2007 1:10 PM:

But do you have some approximate statistics about how many East European and South European immigrants have recently moved to U.K. after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the European Union? My whole point was that these European immigrants in U.K. are almost certainly much more assimilable into the British culture than other groups. Additionally, the Hindu Indians appear to be far more assimilable than the Muslim Pakistanis, and so I am not being racist here by saying that one group is doing much better than the other.

Dave said at November 14, 2007 3:49 PM:

Yes some immigrants to Britain have been very successful, but the issue of this post was that the immigrants are displacing the natives, and yes that is happening, it was recently reported that 300,000 council houses (social government owned houses) are occupied by non-Brits.

As for numbers, no one knows for sure because the government doesn't count, it only takes surveys from time to time which ofcourse can't be accurate because of language issues some people can't answer, or don't feel comfortable answering, want to keep their head down etc.

One time on the news though a reporter was interviewing an editor of a Polish newspaper in Britain and asked him if the massive figure of 600,000 Poles within two years was anywhere near accurate, this at a time when many liberal/globalists were doubting those high-end figures as right-wing scaremongering. He said judging by the increased sales of polish language material in Britain he guessed the figure was at least double that, this was some time ago so a lot more might have come since then, however since Britain doesn't count those in and those out we wouldn't know if a large number didn't like it here and went back home..

I don't think you can just say its because they are more willing to work either, remember earning minium wage £5.50 per hour here is a decent money when taken back home to eastern Europe. But if you offer that amount of money to a Brit they wouldnt be happy and rightly so as its more expensive to live here long term they have to earn more to live and support their families.

I'm not against Polish people, they probably the best immigrants we can have. But I am against all mass-immigration, high IQ or not, I see no advantage in it, and plently of disadvantages, such as a huge housing shortage that we have at the moment.

Harold said at November 14, 2007 4:54 PM:

What's the conflict? The Labor Party is one of the vanguard parties of International Socialism. I don't see why you would expect it to follow the retrograde path of counter-revolutionary petty-bourgeois nationalism! The working class isn't limited to the kulaks and race-privileged wreckers of England-- it includes all the oppressed peoples of the world!

Besides, to New Labor, the UK is just an EU satrapy. Labor ministers seek promotion to Brussels.

Conservatives agree entirely. Anyone who doesn't agree is a racist and ought to be put in gaol.

Randall Parker said at November 14, 2007 6:23 PM:

Wolf-Dog,

You are incorrect to argue that lower IQ immigrants boost the living standards of higher IQ immigrants. As La Griffe du Lion showed in his Smart Fraction Theory and Smart Fraction Theory II lower IQ people bring down the living standards of higher IQ people.

Wolf-Dog said at November 14, 2007 9:42 PM:

Randall Parker,
"You are incorrect to argue that lower IQ immigrants boost the living standards of higher IQ immigrants. As La Griffe du Lion showed in his Smart Fraction Theory and Smart Fraction Theory II lower IQ people bring down the living standards of higher IQ people."
----------------------------------------------------------------

For the average high IQ person, you are probably correct. But for the top 10 %, let me explain why the increase in the low IQ population always raises the income (and hence net worth) of the upper class: Because the lower class (the below average income group) need to be subsidized by the government in the form of various allowances). this always necessitates an annual government deficit spending in the order of at least 2.5 % of the GDP every year. For example, in order to stop the recession that started in 2000, the U.S. government was forced to increase the annual deficit spending to an incredibly higher level nearly $500 billion.


Here is a historical chart of the annual U.S. government deficit spending:
http://www.bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp

Now the point is that all of the annual government deficit spending, ends up in the bank accounts of the upper class (here defined as the above average income group for simplicity.) This is because all the extra money that the government gives to the below average income group, is immediately spent by these people in order to survive, and hence all that money is earned as revenue and income by the upper class. The corporate earnings are strongly correlated with the government deficit.

In other words, the arrival of uneducated and unskilled people into the United States (or U.K.) inevitably forces the government to do print money and give that money to the poor, and then the poor lose that money to the rich (by spending it on mostly non-durable items), and this cycle makes the rich richer every year, since they accumulate that money (because the taxes are much lower than what they used to be more than 30 years ago.)

adrian said at November 15, 2007 12:33 PM:

check out the latest study mr parker: "emigration soars as Britons desert the UK: Britain is experiencing the greatest exodus of its own nationals in recent history while immigration is at unprecedented levels, new figures show. Last year, 207,000 British citizens - one every three minutes - left the country while 510,000 foreigners arrived to stay for a year or more."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WS0YM1PBX5Z0HQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/15/nemi115.xml

mike said at November 16, 2007 6:47 PM:

The UK still has relatively low umemployment, and there are sufficient jobs.

The problem is that immigration increases the cost of housing and has a negative effect on the mediocre quality of life.

Land is generally a lot cheaper in countries like Canada and Australia and government services tend to be more efficient and organised.

Britons, especially working class ones, tends to have a more gloomy disposition than people in other English-speaking countries and are well are aware of the quality of life difference between say, the average white family in Perth, Australia and in Birmingham, England. (What percentage of Americans would refer to their country as "a shit hole", as many Brits do.)

As immigration increases, many Britons with skills and initative leave the country, to find cheaper housing, a better climate etc, which leads to a decline in things like the transport infrastructure and the education sector, making the place even less appealing for those left behind.

Meanwhile the unskilled working class, unable to escape, fall into a funk and loss the motivation to work in low wage jobs, which will barely cover spiralling rents. The first generation immigrations, coming from poorer countries, are quite happy to wash dishes, work in call centres and supermarkets, drive buses etc, as Britain still appears to be a pretty good country by second or third world standards.

However, second generation immigrants, who have access to full welfare services and all the mod-cons of a western country, take these things for granted, and many are becoming even more unmotivated and troublesome than the working class "scallies" which right liberals love to ridicule.

This can be seen in the recent increase in the crime/terrorism rate of the UK Pakistani community, which started off with a very low crime rate.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©