The most recent OBR forecast suggests an annual 0.02% boost to GDP per capita due to high net migration over the next 5 years. They also say this is because the average age of the population is lowered from the migration rather than migrants per se offering higher output.
I said the economic case was weak. The OBR (widely respected) agrees with me.
I welcome positive arguments for high net migration (fairness, diversity, so we can move easily abroad), but just don't see the economic argument standing up.
No one has claimed that migrants offer a higher output, is exactly because of their demographics which makes them net contributors.
They are raised as children in a foreign country at their expense.
They are educated in a foreign country at their expense.
They come to Britain as productive workers for which we haven't spent a single penny on developing.
They are not likely to be old, and therefore do not have a state pension and do have less illness and thus reduced health costs.
Therefore, their cost in benefits is significantly reduced compared to a British worker which the government had to pay all the way up until they started paying taxes in the world as a productive adult. That is what positive articles are indicating - significantly reduced benefits cost.
Examining changes to absolute GDP completely ignores facts such as the net cost of developing that workforce. The ability not to pay significant money in educating a child or paying a pensioner is not a contribution to the GDP directly but a huge saving in cost. Migration form 1995-2011 has saved 50bn pounds in educating the equivalent workforce, so Britain is 50bn richer regardless of additional GDP increases.
The economic case for EU migrants is very strong, they are net contributors compared to a net loss.
When it is said that migrants are net contributors that refers to profit - cost, not profit alone.
For example migrants since 200 have saved UK tax payer 8.5Bn in tax for fixed services such as defense
