UK's unemployment levels are at a record low - is that the effect "this" (sic) has had on employment levels? Or are you referring to wages?
Apart from the other studies that have been cited in other responses, you have the LSE study on wages: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/05/11/immigration-from-th...
If you have any data to back up your claims, please produce it, because I can't find any for the life of me.
There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=bRjX9W3EjZQC&pg=PA3&dq=Inte...
Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates. Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry. Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Wait, what? Who said "let's look at how last week progressed"? "record low" is precisely what it means: Record. It's the lowest since the 70s! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-...
You blame unemployment on immigration, yet there's barely no unemployment. At all.
> There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Of course. Employment is at a record low, yet "it's just what happened". Are you trolling me?
> Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example. > (link)
I've read a few pages, thanks for the link. What's your conclusion? Or did you just Google a few keywords and thought this study matched? Because I don't think this says what you think it says.
Even the f* title of the section is "Has the crisis reversed the progress made by migrants over the past decade?". And goes in to analyse the employment rate differences between foreign-born and local workers.
Even the graphs per country show that where unemployment grew (Spain, Ireland are very clear) it did for both, affecting migrants more than locals. In some occurrences foreign-born employment rates are higher than local rates, i.e. Hungary - hardly qualifies as a country taking loads of migrants, see page 90.
There's a US graph included (no FoM) and it has very similar trends as the rest of the stronger European countries. Dip during recession and recovery for both demographics.
But hey - what was the topic we were talking about? Oh yeah, how immigrants stole your bread. Well, try again with the evidence because the one you provided doesn't even talk about the same topic.
> Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates.
I guess you would've showed me if there was any hint of support to your theories.
> Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry.
Hahaha. I love how you suck at moving goal poses. Again, please show me the evidence.
> Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Well, this is the most ironic thing that happened to me in decades. Do I have now to produce evidence for your false claims? Do I have to do your work now?
I'm an immigrant, of course I have to do your work. How else, right?
I did my research and of course I'm unconsciously biased, but trying to be honest with myself I can't find evidence of migration having caused any negative effect on employment rates or wages on any European country, especially in the EU which is my area of interest.
You must be trolling but I'll say it once again, I know the general state of western economies. I understand that we are NOW in a period of low unemployment. I'm talking about the effect that immigration to certain western countries (half of OECD countries) had on employment levels, which you can verify in the study above whether you want to or not.
And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
One of your co-defenders on here also pointed out another OECD study which says:
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
Are you kidding me mate? I have shown you data for +30 years!
> And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Even though the crisis accentuated migration towards the strongest economies! Why aren't you going further than scratching the surface? I guess because it doesn't fit your narrative.
This is like discussing against a wall. You keep ignoring the evidence and then calling me a troll.
> Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
1) That's not what employment levels mean.
2) The nationals / foreign-born ratio is set to change, but as long as unemployment is low that's irrelevant.
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
> which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
I'll read more about that study, thanks. Yet again, that's not what the LSE study says; it'll be interesting to find the differences and how big is that impact.
Yet again, you paint that as undesirable, when it actually ends up growing the economy and getting everyone back to employment - arguably with better skillset. It's pure competition.
In other terms, if I let you sell your stuff in my country, why can't I sell my labour in yours? As long as we play with the same ruleset it's fair.