Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Mass Immigation - Supporters Figures Show In Fact It Impoverishes Us
This is from one of these quangos that the state uses to produce "research" for the obedient media to repeat as if it were news rather than propaganda. In this case they have come out with a report on how important it is we keep up the ruling classes policy of massive immigration for "social reasons".
"Britain's economy would pay a big price if the Conservatives meet their target of getting annual net immigration down below 100,000 in the next 50 years, a report from a leading think-tank has warned.
National finances would be hit because immigrants tend to be younger than the national average and are able to fill gaps in the labour force left by Britain's ageing population, boosting productivity and tax revenues, while consuming less than the average Briton in public services like healthcare, welfare and education.
NIESR calculated that bringing annual net migration just below 100,000 - rather than the 200,000 estimate used by the Office for National Statistics in its population forecasts - would increase Government spending as a share of GDP by 1.4 percentage points by 2060 and require an increase of 2.2 percentage points in income tax rates."
Except that even taking NIESR's figures at face value they don't show immigration making us better off. 200, 000 immigrants a year is 0.32% annual growth just now (& their arguments assume that proportion will be kept up even as population rises. Over 47 years that is a simple increase [1.0032^47] of 16.2%. Actually, since immigrants, at all times and places, are much more likely to be of child raising age their effect on population growth is going to be at least twice that [1.0064 ^ 47] ie 35%.
So an increase of gdp of 11% doesn't look so good does it? In fact that means average income goes down to 82.2% of what it otherwise would be. Rather than £2,600 extra per person that comes to 17.8% less or £4,700 per person. This takes no account of the proportion of gdp that goes on investment and even less of growth, or inflation, by 2060 but since the quango has been equally careless that is how we must compare them.
Now to Machiavelli that might be allowable - he liked the idea of states growing into empires, but in a more democratic age I care more about the individual citizen being better off not just the state as a whole.
Also in Machiavelli's day there were not as great disparencies between national wealth the straight population = wealth held good, but nowadays the fact that Singapore is 200 times better off per capita than Zimbabwe shows numbers are of little advantage & that social capital is much more important.
Which also brings us the benefit of social heterogeneity. Steve Sailer's blog regularly attests to the advantage of ethnic homogeneity, in that a society where, due to thousands of years of interrelationships, we are all about as closely genetically related as 2nd cousins, we tend to be more interested in helping our neighbours.
"The main reason that America cannot be Sweden is that, unlike Sweden, America is not full of Swedes. We worship diversity in this country, but Sweden has been pretty much a textbook example of the blessings of homogeneity. Of course if Sweden continues with its current immigration policy, pretty soon it will no longer be full of Swedes either. Check out the recent (and under-reported) Stockholm riots to see where this is going."
Though the example of Singapore, above, shows you can use the melting pot to hold an ethnically diverse society together, there clearly is some advantage to such heterogeneity, which immigration dilutes. Equally some immigration helps bring in new ideas, though Japan is another counter example showing ideas can be brought in if a society is simply keen to learn.
But even the cultural swings and roundabouts this result proves that even an organisation so actively trying to make the case for mass immigration that they were willing to fiddle their own figures, has shown that it is, net, undesirable.