Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
The problem with point two is that when an immigrant comes over, they need a house, gp, dentist, etc now. So basically, the government has to tacitly ask the electorate if they want to put the country into into more debt to build the infrastructure capable of supporting these immigrants who might improve things in the long run. Gl with that.
Incidentally, a quick google of the economic benefits of migrants from eastern Europe suggests:
This is not a lot of money to build the infrastructure necessary to supplement the migrants from Eastern European EU countries.
Meanwhile:
So, migrants from central Europe are much better for our economy than those from Eastern Europe. In fact, I would guess based on those figures that when you take in the cost of building the infrastructure necessary to support immigration, those from central Europe subsidise those from Eastern Europe.
The overarching point is that should we leave the EU, these people will still want to come, however we will be able to select who we take.
Suorce:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...EU-immigration
We borrow at 3-3.5%, so contributing 12% more is a positive return.
I genuinely don't know how its difficult to find a way to sell building more schools hospitals and houses because people also call out for those things right now. It should be the labour policy today, though i get their historic difficulty in the area due to the mismanaged building campaign of the Blair years.
Oh man after researching the subject for my dissertation hospital building especially by PFI was soooooo mismanaged.
But in a vacuum people want these things today. They just need to be convinced there is a sustainable investment behind the idea.
As for the other point of course some migrants contribute more than others. No one is surprised by this. Some natives contribute more than others. But you also need many of the low contributing people to facilitate the high contributors.
Cities would grind to a halt if there were not enough cleaners, drivers, bar staff, waiters/tresses, shop workers and so on.
It isn't the person contributing less, it is the job. If the job was filled by a native they still contribute considerably lower than the owner of the bar or shop or whatever. It is built into the system.
The idea we should artificially raise prices of low level jobs and thus harm the poor is insane to me.