Ed Miliband shouldn’t let unsupported myths about immigration cloud his thinking on the issue.
.
Ed Miliband today revealed Labour’s immigration strategy, in a speech much of the media saw as an “apology” for the previous government’s immigration record.
The majority of what was said appears to have gone unchallenged, however, Miliband made one point about the impact of immigrants on wage levels that commentators have been quick to disprove.
He claimed:
“To have an effective immigration policy, we must also reform how our economy works so that it works for all working people in Britain, whoever they are and wherever they come from. That means tougher labour standards to do more to protect working people from their wages and conditions being undermined.
“And action to create a different kind of economy: one which offers working people rewarding and high-skill jobs. So what happened?
“First of all, as a result of immigration combined with weak labour standards in some sectors, there was a direct effect on wages, especially in lower skilled jobs.”
Jonathan Portes, writing for the Independent, referred to a number of sources that dispelled the overwrought myth of immigration affecting wage levels, as Chart 14 shows.
Chart 14:
A report (pdf) from IZA, the Institute for the Study of Labor, entitled “New Labour? The Impact of Migration from Central and Eastern European Countries on the UK Labour Market”, concluded:
Indeed, the impact of such a large and rapid migration shock on wages and unemployment is a crucial labour market issue. This is specially so given the heated public debate on migration – and in particular on migration from current and future accession countries.
Yet, there is currently very limited evidence on migration effects on the UK – and even less so on the effects of the recent EU enlargement.
While a report (pdf) from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) states:
Despite negative media coverage, there is no evidence that this expansion led, on average, to a setback of wages of workers born in the UK.
• Time to talk about integration 6 Mar 2012
• Playing the blame game – it’s all the immigrants fault… 20 Jan 2012
• DWP evidence says migrants aren’t benefit cheats. DWP’s spin says… 20 Jan 2012
• Immigration policy should support UK economic growth, not undermine it 5 Dec 2011
• So is Britain really “full up”? 1 Nov 2011
Miliband shouldn’t let unsupported myths about immigration cloud his thinking on the issue.
48 Responses to “Miliband shouldn’t repeat the myth about immigrants’ impacts on wages”
Blarg1987
I was using them as examples of jobs where we have imported labour on the pretense of we need those skills rather then train people. I agree there is a bias towards academci rather then practical skills, however I find it sad that private companies expect tax payers to provide specilists for them to employ straight away without having to do any training themselves when in many other countries employers train people up as an investment.
henryflea
hey check out a chance to talk with real progressive activists and suport charity http://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/3123010
Anonymous
Not to mention the crappy ongoing training provided in most jobs (Or rather, none).
But I’d point out that the right have (successfully, sadly) had a thing about reducing university attendance RATHER than increasing vocational training.
Add their plan in to award 25% of students trash qualifications…
Last of the steeplemen
Trouble is you will never have fair wages whiled the people of this country refuse to pay anything for products. Whiled we continue to buy the cheapest options employers will continue to use whatever means necessary to keep costs down.
Blarg1987
There needs to be a system where by peoples skills are found out as young as possible so if they are very good academically encourgage the academic route idf they are good vocationally then the vocational route should bee encouraged.
It is ironic that the current goverment was the one that pressured academic qualifications over others as it was cheaper to the tax payer rather then look at the system that would benefit the who;e economy long term.