Divide-and-rule

The Tories are up to their old tricks. In the Times, Tim Montgomerie calls on Cameron to "turn the issue of immigration into an issue of fairness for the working class." He says:

For the people at the bottom of the pile the impact [of immigration] has been enormous...The flipside of cheap nannies, cleaners and painters for the well-to-do in Hampstead and low-cost waiting staff for the hospitality industry is a struggle to make ends meet for hundreds of thousands of low-income British families.

But how "enormous" is enormous? Mr Montgomerie doesn't give us any numbers. The largest reputable estimate of an impact low-skilled wages I've seen comes from Jumana Saleheen and Steve Nickell:

A 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 5.2 percent reduction in pay.

However, a 10 percentage point rise is a big rise - a near-doubling: in their data sample, these industries have immigrant proportions of around 12%.

Even if this is right, it does not justify restricting immigration. Insofar as the "well-to-do" gain from immigration, it is instead a case for a more redistributive tax and benefit system, to spread the gains more equitably.

What's more, immigration is not the only - or even main - reason why hundreds of thousands of low-income families are struggling to make ends meet. There's also the recession (since January 2008 real average earnings have fallen 7.6%, a bigger decline than even Nickell and Saleheen's estimate of an immigration effect); the impact of technical change and globalization in reducing the wages and job prospects of the unskilled; and of course the rising power of the capitalist class.

But Mr Montgomerie omits any mention of these. It's rather queer for someone to care so much about the fate of unskilled workers in the context of immigration, and yet be indifferent about the many other threats to their well-being. It's enough to make one suspect that something else is going on.

That something is the same thing that we're seeing in the Tories adverts attacking people "who won't work." It's a crass and largely fact-free exercise at divide-and-rule, an attempt to turn natives against migrants and those in work against those out of work, thus disguising the fact that all four groups have common concerns.

In fact, I fear it's worse than that. The cultivation of animosity to foreigners, and a glorification of virtuous hard-working indigenous people has a whiff of fascism about it. 

Comments

[Staberinde]

Surely an increase in the labour supply must put downward pressure on the price of labour?

[Romford Dave]

Animosity to foreigners is akin to an apprentice having tallow rubbed into his bollocks, it's a timed honoured tradition enjoyed regardless of class, and given that the working class are the most class concious of all, it's crass to deny them the opportunity of whingeing about foreigners and benefit scroungers, neither of which being mutually exclusive.

Nothing that comes out of any politicians mouth, or for that matter any of their lackeys whether in print or elsewhere, should be considered a truth, so it ill behoves any of us giving credence to anything they say, remembering always, that one of the 'richest' countries in the world is actually skint.

Fortunately it's real riches lays in the diversity of its population, whom rather that impoverishing the country, will actually culminate in its continued success.

Just has it has always done.

Success, despite the continued protestations of a small and dimishing band of 'true' Englishmen, if there were ever such a tribe.

Of course the measurement of the perceived success is as always, subjective.

[Steve]

Mass immigration in a time of recession leads inevitably to fascism, as you note. However, I am perplexed that you would consider this a reason to encourage yet more mass immigration. Do you actively want the native population to feel threatened and join in the fascist movement?

[chris]

@ Staberinde - not necessarily:
1. In part, high immigration in the 00s was a response to a high demand for labour; the demand curve was shifting out as well as the supply curve.
2. Migrants can be complements for domestic workers, not substitutes. Eg if there's immigration of roofers, native plasterers can do more work and so earn more. This is very often the case for more skilled workers.
3. Immigrants don't just supply labour, but also buy stuff. This creates jobs.
4. Even if immigration does increase labour supply and reduce wages, this should reduce inflation, and thus allow interest rates to be lower and hence aggregate demand higher.
The US has received tens of millions of immigrants in the last 400 years. Would it really be a richer place if it had not had these immigrants?

[Staberinde]

@Chris
1. Sure, but by using immigration to address demand in the short term, the price signals to the labour market are muted. Domestic labour doesn't train as roofers and the overall domestic skill base is depressed.
2. This assumes that certain skill shortages act as economic bottlenecks. I don't disagree, but this only makes the case for attracting skills which take a long time to train (eg: dentistry) rather than your example of roofing.
3. Indeed, but so to does domestic labour. Surely if we take an unemployed British roofer off the dole he, too, will buy stuff? And what's more, he'll not be receiving benefits either.
4. Ah, but doesn't this lead to the inequality you've posted about recently? 10 more American bankers may deprive 10 aspiring British bankers of opportunities, but 500 Polish roofers will compete with 500 working class people. It seems a numbers game to me. If you accept that there is a risk of displacing a UK worker's opportunity then we should seek immigration only from small numbers of high-value people rather than large numbers of lower-skilled people.

Per your point about America, the differences are:
a) Much lower benefits expenditure - so if a migrant can't pay their way, the State picks up less of the bill
b) Strong emphasis on English - so a much lower language impact on the school system
c) You assume that the immigration-growth relationship is linear when it may plateau at some point. After all, if immigration does equal growth, all Greece has to do is open its borders.

[Metatone]

Since we're discussing a model - a big difference between the US and UK regarding population changes is the availability of housing. Immigration is inflationary in the SE of the UK because of housing.

Not that this isn't easy to fix by government action, if the will is there, but the will hasn't been there.

[Ralph Musgrave]

Which “fascist movement” is Steve referring to? Would that be the lot who believe (like Hitler) in killing the cartoonists and authors they don’t like? The same lot who have tried for years at the UN to get criticism of their movement banned worldwide (suppression of free speech is after all a hall-mark of fascism). That’s the lot, a significant proportion of whom think that anyone leaving their movement should be killed.

[WTF]

Ralph,

I assumed Steve was referring to the BNP, especially as he used the word "native", which they themselves have been known to use as a dog whistle.

Do you think calling the BNP "fascist" is harsh or unfair? Or was it something else that set you off on your out-of-nowhere rant against Muslims, about who you seem to share the BNP's views. Nice unforced Godwin in there too - well done.

How many cartoonists and authors have been killed in the UK to date by Islamic fundamentalists?