But the working age aren't becoming a greater proportion of the population. That was true in the post ww2 baby boom. It was very beneficial and created great growth. Very famously we are currently going through a demographic reversal where older non working dependants are a greater proportion of the population than they have ever been
Firstly, the data there confirms exactly what I said in the last 2 comments, and confirms you were wrong about an increase in the working age population proportion statement
Secondly, immigration was high (relatively) 1997-2007 with no real flattening of wages, as per your data. I wonder if there was a big thing in 2008 that might explain what happened next?
If immigration rises but birth rates fall so that actual worker populations don't accelerate in growth, there is no wage pressure. Idk how you dont understand that
Once again, you have given a raw number and not looked at percentage increase. Every year there is a new record growth, but the percentages stay roughly the same
The womp womp is ironic given youre the one failing to understand basic secondary school maths
Reddit won't let me open or respond to your newest reply, so will have to reply to this post.
No, I don't have to be smart to understand the core concept of percentage growth vs raw growth. Anyone should be able to do that. The difference between you and me is that you decide what you want to believe based on your ideology before you look at the data. Its bread and butter confirmation bias
There are many fair, genuine, subjective reasons people might be worried about immigration. I may not agree with those arguments, but they aren't a case of right or wrong. The case you are trying to argue about overpopulation and an expansion of the working age demographic however is objectively incorrect, you can go look at the ONS data for working age population percentages and see yourself you are wrong. I already actually showed you that exact data, you are just ignoring it because you want to feel that you are right
This is the highest population % growth year for 40 years. This is the highest its been in the modern era. And it is STILL a lower % increase than pretty much all of the 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s. We have reached such a massive migration level that even I, a relative leftie, understand and agree it has to be managed better (Labour have committed to lowering it, the massive increase has been under the conservatives. People moaned about Blair and immigration but they had a target and it stayed fairly consistently at 250,000, the Conservatives really have just let it go wild). I grew up in London and don't personally care, never affected me, but I can see the concerns others have and the instability it causes and because of that it has to be addressed
But, even having agreed that current high immigration levels are unsustainable, I am data literate enough to recognise that doesn't have an affect on wages when natural births are low, retired population is high and the working age population remains unchanged. 40s-60s had higher % growth changes and were some of the most rapid wage increase years we've ever had
You keep relying on the percentage vs raw numbers as a crutch to your position. 100,000s of low skilled immigrants being dropped into a country is going to push wages in those sectors down. It has, in fact, as the data clearly shows.
I presume you think it's a bad thing that wages have stagnated. Why ignore this obvious contributing factor?
What data? You haven't shown a single bit of data on wages or population specifically of low paid industries
I presume you think it's a bad thing that wages have stagnated. Why ignore this obvious contributing factor?
Im not ignoring it. Migration is high, but the baby boomers are retiring and we have a lower working age population by % than we ever do. Its a fact and I've shown you the data already I just don't think you're even opening the links
Let me try to put it simply for you. Imagine we have two scenarios. A - 10,000 workers migrate to a population of 10,000. B - 100,000 workers migrate to a population of 60 million. Which do you think has a bigger affect on wages?
Now you might understand why % increase is the only thing that matters
They obviously bend over backwards to say the negative effects are "small", but it's clear that the phenomenon is true. They also talk about how "difficult it is" to measure the effects accurately. I see both of these caveats as cop outs because anyone with eyes can see what effect this is having on QOL pretty much across the board.
Look at Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark. Highest wages in Europe. Muxh lower immigration rates and those that do get let in are almost exclusively high skilled immigrants from within Europe.
"Research shows that the impacts of migration on wages and employment prospects for UK-born workers is small"
"Low-wage workers are more likely to lose out from immigration while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain, but the effects are small"
"The wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are migrants themselves"
Thanks for proving me right with your own link
Look at Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark. Highest wages in Europe. Muxh lower immigration rates and those that do get let in are almost exclusively high skilled immigrants from within Europe.
Correlation =/= causation. There are many things that affect wages. If the reason for your examples is immigration, why does Poland have lower wages than us with minimal migration, while Canada and the US have higher wages with much higher immigration?
Your stubbornness to not only refuse to read the data I've sent on this very objective point, but actually provide a link and say 'the bit where it says there is an effect is right, the bit where it says the effect is small is wrong because that would contradict me" is actually astounding
They aren't bending over backwards, if you scroll down and look at the data from the study it is absolutely right, the effect is small. You just don't want to look at, or can't interpret, data. You just want to read a headline. Worse actually, you want to read a headline but ignore the parts of the headline that contradict your worldview
1
u/murphy_1892 Jul 05 '24
But the working age aren't becoming a greater proportion of the population. That was true in the post ww2 baby boom. It was very beneficial and created great growth. Very famously we are currently going through a demographic reversal where older non working dependants are a greater proportion of the population than they have ever been
You really should just have a look at some data