Putting the cart before the horse
Rhetoric: much has been published lately with regard to the need for more immigrants to the Cayman islands to promote growth in the economy. Let’s take a brief look at the evidence in general and what ‘conventional wisdom’ has to say on the economic effects of immigration. Firstly, the House of Lords select committee 2007: "The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has a very small impact on GDP per capita."
The conclusions are in line with the findings of studies in other countries, including the USA. One complication it noted was that a large part of the way immigrants might make a country richer is because they themselves become richer.
Secondly, "The economic impact of immigration", a Citivas on-line report by the University of Cambridge, concludes: " The overall impact of immigration is small … You cannot rely on immigration to solve labour shortages. These problems can only be effectively tackled by a mobilising the under- utilisation of the talents and energies of the existing population." However, on a more positive note it concluded that "certain types of immigration, such as that of highly skilled professionals, are to the economic advantage and may have helped to create jobs for the less skilled."
This evidence is UK based so care must be taken in interpretating the findings.
Back down to earth: Economics room 101.
1. The economy of the Cayman islands can only grow with extra imported labour if it improves the GDP per head. In the current unemployment conditions this would be impossible. It’s like putting the cart before the horse. And don’t forget, more people means more heads to be divided into the GDP cake.
2. The case is sometimes made here for a larger consuming population to increase the economies of scale. This effect can only be slight because in Cayman much of this spending leaks away on imported goods and the balance of payments.
3. Another case is that un-let accommodation needs to be filled. This would be good for those investors in property caught out by the slump but in general terms the current lower rents that are a consequence can only be economically and socially advantageous for a high cost island.
Conclusions.
Cayman does not need more people. It needs more jobs, jobs that will come with the inevitable recovery in global economic conditions or from a positive impact of the recent proposed stimulation packages. At the risk of sounding pedantic, Cayman is not ready yet for more people.
More people only means more jobs when they come in response to improving economic conditions and only then, as indicated by the Civitas report, under very limited conditions, to do the specialized work that cannot be done by local Caymanians. Forget the rhetoric: emphasize that the horse’s place is in front of the cart!
Note: In this article I have deliberately not got involved in all the social and environmental costs of more people and more growth. These are likely to be even more important in the long term than the economics.
Category: Viewpoint
Nice to hear that you are alive and kicking Jack.
Was exploring the net, perhaps to touch the past, and found your letter to the CNS. The subsequent, and wonderful, debate which it stimulated was interesting and exciting to read. Though I have not taken your Econ 101,102 (I wouldda if I couldda), the bits and pieces that I studied in re to Keynes & Friedman (did I say them in the same breath?), freeing-up $$ and creating jobs is…rational. I agree: immigration would be putting the cart before the horse. Why do I care?…afterall, I don’t even live there…or own property. It’s because of this: I would hate to see the Cayman’s suffer under the hands of short sighted solutions. I will treasure the memories of my time there. What is special about the Cayman’s to me is the calmer way of life, the ease of breathing in a certain kind of harmony between its people, and old world charm. Other islands in the Carib don’t have that charm. I hope that is never sacrificed for acquiring the dollars of the yachting-set.
The government and its supporters are sure that a population increase to over 100K is the way to continued growth. I can speak from facts when the population was 15K it was said we needed to increase the population to 25K and it only got worse look at what is happening now that the population is 54K.
Please let me know when another 3K Status and PR will be given so that I can liquidate and run away from mass chaos.
If we do the same we did with the grow of population (allow the civil service to grow at an even faster pace) then you are absolutly right, it will only get worse.
The problem is the civil service is to big for this size of economy and population, either we reduce the civil service or we grow the economy WITHOUT!!!! growth in the civil service.
Sounds like ‘mission creep’?
You correctly say that immigration does not significantly affect GDP per capita.
Lets accept that for a minute, in reality depends on the quality of the jobs you bring in, if they are at the low end GDP per capita will decrease, if they are at the professional high end GDP per capita will increase, basic average, but this is not the point.
If GDP per capita stays the same and you have a 10% population decrease as we saw in the last 2 years your GDP goes down 10%.
If your Government revenue is function of GDP (very rough assumption but hold on with me) your Government revenue is down 10% and your cost is flat at best, result you have a deficit.
The issue here is that the Government size is unsustainable for this level of GDP (look at the Miller Shaw report, or if you don’t want to, go to the free United Nations Economic Statistics and compare our government expenditure as percentage of GDP with most of all other countries in the world)
So G/GDP is too high, you either reduce G or increase GDP
Reducing G is basically reducing the size of the civil service, that is redundancies in this economic environment, more unemployment, more security issues, not viable at this time.
Increase GDP. GDP is GDP per capita times Population. The reports you quote correctly state that there is no easy way of moving GDP per capita quickly and even increasing population doesn’t change GDP per capita much.
Therefore: Increase population, GDP per capita stays around where it is today, GDP increases, Government expenditure as percentage of GDP decreases, Government gets back into surplus without redundancies, we start paying back the debt, we get the UK of our backs and most of us living in this Island will be better of… or we can get back to fishing and making rope.
What a terrible piece of economic analysis which cites UK based research which considers a completely different economy. Citing foreign reports out of context and then relying upon them for a general thesis without any attempt to justifying the basis for the reliance is of dubious academic integrity.
1. "And don’t forget, more people means more heads to be divided into the GDP cake." This panders to the greatest fallacy of them all in terms of Cayman postings on the economy – that the Cayman economy is a zero sum game. I would hope that was not Mr. Sloper’s point, but it will be misunderstood by those who want to use lines like that for protectionist ends. The use of imported labour can create wealth in markets where none existed thus adding to the economy or as it it were swelling the cake.
2."These problems can only be effectively tackled by a mobilising the under- utilisation of the talents and energies of the existing population." This was quoting from a report of a nation of 60m where immigrants had effectively moved in to the construction, plumbing, electrical sectors. There was no question that the UK had the ability to produce individuals that could take those jobs. Not so Cayman. The driver of Cayman’s economic growth has been offshore services.
Tourism is a side-show but OFC services have become much more competitive between OFCs in recent years and much more technically demanding. Simple bell curve analysis drives the simple conclusion that if Cayman wants to compete and grow in these markets it can only be by heavy use of imported labour. Take lawyers for an example. In a population of 35,000 or so, only a small handful can be expected to become attorneys of the equivalent standard as City firms in England or Wall Street firms in New York – by a handful probably 3 or 4. There is no question of under-utilisation of local talent – there are a wealth of protectionist laws which ensure that.
3) The obvious means of encouraging growth is importing labour and, perhaps more critically, capital. The Shetty hospital and the Hohn free trade zone are good examples of this. But the current barriers to investment – the 60% ownership rule and employment costs and uncertainty associated with workpermits and roll over are costing Caymanians jobs by suffocating economic growth.
The UK reports focussed largely on non-professional labour. You may have a point in the context of bar staff or labourers but too high a barrier to importing staff at this end of the market would be highly inflationary. But you have made attempt to make out your point at the higher end of the labour market.
Simple bell curve analysis….lol. The Premier must be listening to people like you who throw out catch phrases without have a clue as to their meaning or how they should be used.
Mr. Sloper is an economist and Cayman has an economy, so there is relevance to what he says, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him. On the other hand, you and others of your ilk, have no more understanding of cause and effect than a rooster who thinks that his crowing causes the sun to rise.
Bell curve analysis is pretty simple when you accept that there is an intelligence distribution curve and certain tasks require individuals above a certain level of intelligence. Both assumptions are fair.
It is just a question of setting the hypothetical IQ level for the task in question and plugging in the numbers. With the small number of Caymanians by population one can assume quite favourable figures and come up with a very low number compared to industry demands. Most big top-end professional firms would like more Caymanians in their services, but unfortunately it is a question of limited supply. Hence substantial immigration is necessary.
I think your post goes to what Mr. Sloper and I have been saying in the posts above – that out of context his brief Viewpoint could be taken out of context by the lunatic Rooster fringe (my words not his of course!). I would really look forward to some more detailed commentary by Mr. Sloper, he does have very valuable things to say. Unfortunately in the sound-bite world of today there are limited places to say them in any level of depth.
"Hence substantial immigration is necessary."
The majority of immigrants are on the other side of the bell curve. There is nothing substantial about the numbers your asking for.
There would be in terms of GDP contribution.
This debate has hotted up nicely and l have been tempted back in for a last shot in the crossfire whizzing overhead and to deal with some misconceptions and to admit that some comments could be misconstrued.
Full employment
Immigration into Cayman is not a" zero sum game " — that’s the problem. In the good times of full employment the Keynesian multiplier effect is getting to work, albeit with a lot of leakage to savings, remittances repatriated back home, imports and payments to Government. In these times, expansion of the existing economic base and new projects requiring more labour cannot be met by the existing labour pool so it has to be imported. This is why Caymanians have become outnumbered over the years of runaway growth and there is an element of immigrants creating more work simply for ever more immigrants.
Economies of scale
What about the idea of economies of scale and more self-sustainability to be reaped from a larger population? There is some merit in this but Cayman would need to expand enormously (for there to be any meaningful gain in incomes), and who wants that? There are many who are already concerned by the thought of the social and environmental costs of the current level of growth and wonder if they have become more prosperous in a true and meaningful way? Surely ways must be found to control the rate of growth if only through planning control of land use?
Unemployment
The demand for immigrants is greatly reduced. The problem then is one of withdrawal symptoms from the previous high level of employment and income (unlet property is a real concern) and the need for new projects to kick-start the treadmill — more jobs ("horse") and more people ("cart"). I think this is where we came in.
Contraction/growth/a steady and sustainable level growth? All things considered the latter would be ideal but impossible to consider in a place where bareknuckle capitalism has been so successful and any concept of "command" would be utterly rejected. But there may be something we can learn if we keep open minds ready to change with circumstances.
JS
I agree with your comments. You are correct to point out the differences between Cayman’s economic growth and that of others. My article was biased: it was clouded by a memory of what Cayman was like in the past and weighted heavily with social and environmental fears for the future. It certainly was not meant to be definitive but rather to promote debate. It has. You really are an Adam Smith, "invisible hand" included.
However, I still feel it had some merit in pointing out (but failing miserably in your case) that immigration might not be the panacea for the future, especially bearing in mind that Cayman has reached a stage of development and level of growth equivalent to rich countries and with diminishing returns likely to set in early on a small island.
Be that as it may, my article was mainly to do with emphasis and did not pretend to be a" thesis". Surely continually stressing immigration as a way forward takes the emphasis away from creating and educating a local workforce for the future and is defeatist? I’m not sure there is work here for more immigrants under current conditions anyway.
JS
We probably agree on quite a lot of this – just don’t tell anyone! (Sorry about the tone before I was feeling a little too miserable when I posted before!).
My real concern is that your "snapshot" comment (no insult intended) was not what you said but rather how it could be misinterpreted by the out and out protectionists. Cayman needs significant immigrant populations to keep its high end OFC services at the top of the world market and without these immigrant there would be less jobs in those industries for Caymanians.
The role of immigration in other sectors is difficult on the employment side. Cheap labour is probably a "must have" for the tourism industry to have any prospect of competing in the international market – Cayman is already very expensive compared to the quality of tourist product it offers.
The indirect effect of immigration in terms of the economy is more difficult and your article points out that the "more is better" approach is too simplistic. However my main concern is that practically Cayman either expands or it contracts, it probably will find it very difficult to stay where it is. Contraction is probably disastrous, especially since the revenue base could contract disproportionately to the population contraction. We have seen evidence of this over the last couple of years.
What we do need to encourage is capital investment from non-Caymanians in businesses which will employ Caymanians. Right now there are many residents with considerable capital assets who won’t invest because of the 60% ownership rule. That rule should be relaxed considerably to encourage greater small business investment.
"1. ‘And don’t forget, more people means more heads to be divided into the GDP cake.’ This panders to the greatest fallacy of them all in terms of Cayman postings on the economy – that the Cayman economy is a zero sum game. I would hope that was not Mr. Sloper’s point, but it will be misunderstood by those who want to use lines like that for protectionist ends."
Only if you ignore the first sentence of the paragraph. You come off as an anti-protectionist zealot.
"and roll over are costing Caymanians jobs by suffocating economic growth."
How many jobs? I see other solutions than more rapid expansion. Cayman’s population has been growing unsustainably, and has already led to an array of immediate problems.
As for Shetty’s hospital, you don’t think an entire pillar of the economy relying on one man’s hospital would have adverse effects? or is that protectionist ‘rhetoric’?
“This was quoting from a report of a nation of 60m where immigrants had effectively moved in to the construction, plumbing, electrical sectors. There was no question that the UK had the ability to produce individuals that could take those jobs. Not so Cayman”.
Let me get this right, are you seriously suggesting that Cayman does not have the ability to produce construction workers, plumbers and electricians? What an absurd statement. If you had made this point concerning the financial services sector I would agree, but Caymanians are obviously more than capable of becoming tradesmen.
And another thing, the problem with the “bell curve” mindset is that they promote the fallacy that anyone from a populous country is automatically more competent than anyone from one with a small population. No account is taken for outliers. That will have some merit when you are comparing the best and brightest from those countries with the best and brightest from ours but most often that is not the case at all. The “bell curve” mindset also leads to racist employment policies where it is assumed that one is a member of race that scores highly on the bell curve that individual is automatically more competent than member of a race which does not score as highly. You are simply lumped into a group and labelled accordingly. That is the very definition of prejudice.
“The obvious means of encouraging growth is importing labour and, perhaps more critically, capital. The Shetty hospital and the Hohn free trade zone are good examples of this”.
Back to Mr. Sloper’s point, that is putting the cart before the horse. The Shetty hospital is not an example of importing labour to encourage economic growth. Instead, it is job creation through foreign investment that results in imported labour.
Re protectionist laws, I am sure that you are well aware that these are routinely circumvented (and in some cases flagrantly breached) and therefore do not serve their intended purpose.
The idea that we should artificially try to increase our population so that we will increase the number of consumers and thereby have economic growth is plainly silly. Cayman should use this time to address its social problems which are almost out of hand.
Hey Mr Sloper,your post is a fairly brillant one but is obviously limited as you’ve touched on towards the end. It is a tall order to get Mr Bush to comprehend much of your sentiments. And in reflecting,a even taller one for myself as well as many other Caymanian’s to comprehend how the much vaunted need for a larger channel in the North Sound to accommomdate larger boats. With,if you will,these sort of immigrants, will have little contribution to Cayman’s GDP,although Mr Bush is pitching it that they will.Which in reality is nothing more than Mr Bush s’ ceaseless ploy fantasy of elitism. He says they will rent cars & the crews will shop tirelessly. Allbeit we are talking about a handful of yachts. Mr Bush mentions whole heartedly that Caymanian’s losing their homes (which his actions will fix) is part of his motive,which is another pile of rubbish & has gone as far as calling return visitors to Cayman "sangwich tourist". Job’s are really what is needed & Caymanian’s to fill them. Mr Bush’s current idea’s will not fix the present problems,there are endless post on the web which show Cayman’s visitors repeatedly shun a very built up Cayman & overcrowding.I dislike repeating such a ignorant term,but who else will Mr Bush consider to be sandwich people? Lastly,the volume of the ‘specialized Caymanian’ is increasing daily,to the discomfort of some including Mr Bush. & to suggest in the new Economic Zone that only 20% of the people there will be Caymanian is proof to my point. I appreciate your post,got to go,a few so called ‘sangwich tourist’ are ready for a night cap.
Whilst I did not take Economics with Mr. Sloper at that stage of education, I was part of the group that he introduced to the game of Rugby. His insightful analysis with references is very appropriate at this stage of development where we are fast losing our Caymanian identity and culture.To dilute this further by wholescale development without careful planning and attention to the social, infrastructural and economic impacts would be most foolhardy indeed. What are the powers that be thinking. Mr. Sloper you probably remember the 1975 Development Plan study and what that predicted too and certain politicians decided to throw it out. Now the chickens are coming home to roost
This article misses an important point and perhaps the writer is not fully aware of the demand for labour within the financial services industry. hundreds of jobs are being exported from cayman everyu year because either a) labout is too expensive compared to placeslike canada b) immigration policy in cayman rejects permits for new or existing posts.
It is true that we cannot increase the population without jobs being created in the first place but the fact is that there is a huge demand for labour in cayman and at least a material part of the reasons why the labour (and the increased popopulation) is not here is because of the immigration policy. Like most countries cayman naturally “protects”/raise barriers etc more when in a recession and in our case this manifest itself primarily in the form of increased protectionism in our immigration policy.
You cannot discuss the economics of labour without discussing the demand side and there is a lot of demand for labour which is not being met (i.e. the jobs are being sent elsewhere) for structural/policy reasons.
over the past 2 years we have seen a reduction of the population due to the global recession. But this has also been due to the increasing protectionism (which itself is worsened by the deepening recession itself. This is a vicous cycle.
when observes say “we need more people” this also means that we should stop exporting positions to other countries.
The 60% ownership rule is a significant fetter on the growth of the Cayman economy and job creation.
The wealthy capital rich ruling families of Cayman have hoodwinked the average Caymanian into thinking that the 60% rule suits them, when in fact it has only resulted in the super-concentration of wealth in a few and a very distorted market.
Free up the market a bit and, heavenforbid, allow local businesses to have to deal with some more competition. Oligopolistic profits caused by the current system (together with the arcane licensing system) significantly increase the cost of living in Cayman.
Good article Mr. Sloper. We need more jobs and not more people. Your points are valid no matter what country you make a comparison to. What I do not understand is how the Cuban immigration to Florida in the 60’s and 70’s affected that state.
Nice to know you are still around or along!
Mr Sloper, It has been some 35+ years since you were my economics teacher. I still recall, with surprising clarity, your drill for the definition of money; a generally accepted medium of exchange, measure of value and store of value…
Thank you for all your efforts for what I’m sure was a somewhat unruly class. It nice to see that you are still taking an interest in Cayman.
I was also his student and remember the principles of Econ101 very well. It is so refreshing to get views from professionals and academia on this Blog.
It seems as if since 2008 everyone has become an expert economists and financial analyst while the professionals have remained quiet.
I would love to hear from other professionals on what would be the social, environmental, and infrastructural impact on our Beloved Isles if large scale (uncontrolled) population growth occurs; as it surely will occur, if any of these proposed mega-projects become a reality.
Thanks Mr Sloper,
PS: Do you remember that infamous essay written by one of your Class of 78 students on “What determines the demand for refridgerators?”
I am afraid I do not remember this particular masterpiece — it was longer ago for me than for you. Did it have anything to do with freezing assets?
JS
Elections! I was six years ahead of the poster and thus missed your economics class, but politicians have always given appliances to large families, or voting blocs, around election time.
Your class could easily have been unruly — I forgot to mention a fourth function of money as that of being a unit of account, a function considered to be important In the business sector on the island but not apparently so much by the Civil Service. Go to detention-you, not the Civil Service. On second thoughts….
JS
Part of the problem is that even enterprising Caymanians, whose businesses provide jobs, feel marginalised and disenfranchised. These Caymanian business owners cannot compete in the markets they had previously dominated such as rental properties and restaurants. Now, much as we all may enjoy the ambiance of Camana Bay, the sad reality is that Caymanian owned restaurants and rental properties are now empty. Rental rates are dropping like a stone and foreclosures are on the rise. Restaurants are also closing, most recently we saw the closure of Mezza Restaurant. To add insult to injury, the foreign investors behind projects such as the RC and Cayman Bay have more influence with our politicians that we the voters do. XXXX The average enterprising Caymanian cannot begin to compete with this for our politician’s attention. We have only our votes to offer and the politicians only appear to be interested in our concerns six months before elections. What does this mean for Cayman? It means, that there will be further concentration of wealth in the hands of these foreign investors (plus our politicians and their chosen few). This will in turn lead to further marginalisation of Caymanians combined with an absence of the jobs they provided and consequently more social unrest.
It’s time Cayman stopped importing so much cheap unskilled labor and instead started forcing all those unemployed and unskilled Caymanians to do the work for a minimum wage instead, thus returning to the position whereby mainly skilled international labor is brought in?
You need to increase productivity. Importing cheap labor to offset low productivity results in all the problems that everyone is raising hell about.
Regarding your conclusion.
I agree that more people is not the answer. Additionally, it has been shown here in Cayman that importing labor of any kind both skilled and unskilled, results in them sending the majority of their earnings back to their countries of origin. The abundance of “Western Union” type money wiring facilities that have sprung up here is testament to this. Such monies sent away don’t come back to Cayman through tourism or the financial industry. If “trickle down” economics worked then Cayman would have no unemployment by virtue of our highly successful finance industry and developments like the Ritz Carlton and Camana Bay. Obviously the money DOES NOT trickle down as the rich would have us believe. The secret the rich don’t want us to know is that they got rich off the rest of us. The next time you drink from a styrofoam cup, take a look at who’s name is on the bottom. You will see that wealth trickles up, not down. Inviting the rich here will not create the kinds of jobs we need. We need the everyday average middle class “sandwich tourist” as referred to by the Premier on TV last week. He states that he would rather have a fewer tourists of great wealth than lots of average “sandwich tourists”. It was the spending of these average visitors who grew Cayman to where we are today. The condos were built and sold to accommodate them. Car rental agencies and supermarkets were expanded to cater to them. Making Cayman more expensive by raising duties keeps these visitors away which is exactly what the Premier wants. He thinks mega yachts are the solution. They cannot create the amount or kinds of jobs we need. Money leaves Cayman everyday to buy the things we need to live. Some of the money we send away never comes back. The best and surest way to have that money return is with a reliable “sandwich tourist” who will return over and over again. This will create the jobs we need and nothing else will.
Here’s how jobs are created. Jobs are not created by governments. Jobs are created by an increased demand for goods and services. Increased demand for goods and services comes from people having more spending power (increased income). Increased income comes from the “outside world” and is brought here by tourists and the financial industry. We sell Cayman as a vacation destination and in return we receive income from the visitors. Increased “stay over” visitors means increased income to our island. This increased income results in the increased spending power and thus higher demand for goods and services and thus the creation of more jobs to meet the demand. It’s how the world works. Cayman’s economy began shrinking 2 years before the worldwide recession started. Although the recession is being felt here, we will not likely see a full recovery due to the problems that began before the recession. If we don’t address our high cost of living, we will remain at the losing end of the highly competitive market for tourist dollars. We are not the only tropical island with nice beaches and warm weather. There are plenty of other islands that offer more beauty, less travel distance and cheaper prices to visitors. The island that wins will likely be in the “less expensive” category rather than the “more expensive”. Imagine how it would be if Cayman were so affordable that there was a 6 month waiting list for people to make reservations to visit. All the hotel rooms and condos would be full all year round. Such a waiting list would further heighten the interest in visiting Cayman and create new demand by virtue of our popularity. Businesses from taxis to restaurants and everything in between would have to hire help and expand to meet the new demand of the all-year-round capacity filled hotels and condos. Government would make a windfall in fees and duties which would result in the hiring of even more civil servants. This scenario could easily be realized if our elected members, made concerted efforts to reduce the cost of living here by reducing duties and other fees that price us out of the market. Mega yachts and dredging channels in the North Sound is NOT going to help. Such a move is meant only to give ocean access to Camana Bay and the Ritz. The premier will eventually see that the “caviar tourist” does not contribute as much to our economy as the “peanut butter and jelly tourists” do. Instead of having full hotels and a waiting list of visitors to come here, we are currently the ones waiting and hoping that tourists will eventually return. We have the ability to turn the table. If you are unemployed and want a job, tell your elected official to reduce our cost of living NOW.
Sensible enough (though as you acknowledge, limited in scope) comments, Jack, and good to see you taking an interest again in Cayman. It’s changed a lot over the last four decades and not always for the better. ‘Twas ever thus with “development”, I suppose.
GDP is not that great of indicator of well being of country. Perhaps you might use the HDI put forth by the United Nations over the last several years. GDP, especially here, doesn’t work well because you have many at the very top earning unbalanced amount of money to most people.
Thank you, I agree. As I am sure you know I was not trying to measure the" wellbeing" of any country. That’s economics 102 — don’t start me off.
JS
You summed this up perfectly, "Cayman does not need more people. It needs more jobs."
The problem right now is the high-profile job creation schemes being touted by the government look good on paper but that’s about all.
Just look at what is happening with Ritz-Carlton. Massive financial concessions but no real return for them in the form of the promised job opportunities for Caymanians.
With hindsight it’s worth asking if R-C had been forced to pay their way the same as everyone else would the islands have lost out? If they decided not to go ahead with the deveopment the losses to CIG would have been minimal but if they had paid up a good chunk of the current deficits might have been covered. Definitely would have been worth the gamble.
It seems to be time to take a stand with these developers – something along the line of, "If you want to come here this it what it will cost you in terms of genuine job creation opportunities and taxes or duties. If you don’t like that peddle your goods somewhere else!" A lot of other places do it without any problems so why not Cayman?
As the situation with a number of developers has demonstrated in recent years, "Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile."
Well said Jack, but of course the Premier will say “you don’t know jack” about what we need. Unfortunately, the people who do understand do not have any more power than that Mini Moke you used to drive back in the 70’s.
I am not sure that any useful comparison can be drawn between the effects of immigration on countries such as the UK or USA, and a tiny island nation like the Cayman Islands.
Jack – I not sure of the validity of the points made in your article. As JTB said I’m not sure you can compare the effects of immigration here with those of the USA and the UK. You do not appear to have considered scale i.e. the volume of net inward immigation over a particular period. To illustrate the recent census placed our population at 54000+ up some 30+ percent during the last 10-11 years. Neither the US nor UK would have experienced nearly this sort of population increase during this or any post-World War II period. But getting back to Cayman, it cannot be disputed that f
My reference to evidence from two UK sources were included for you to draw your own conclusions. You did, and thank you. Your conclusions are not mine. I was trying to make the point that immigration is not the panacea that it is often portrayed as being. Cayman is of course a very small and different economy but nevertheless it can be regarded as a microcosm of the outside world. A comparison based not on size but rather on the stage and level of growth is more fruitful. The island grew at a very fast rate fuelled by a massive immigration but a stage might now have been reached, where, to carry the analogy, most of the cherries have been picked.
JS