Turn on thread page Beta

"A world of free movement could be $78 trillion richer" watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    We've made this mistake before, even the left now admit it.
    That isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand. In the case talked about in the article you linked, one country is opening it's borders to one group whilst others didn't. In the ideal mentioned in the OP, everyone has completely open borders to everyone else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FriendlyPenguin)
    Only that much? I heard it would be $9999 trillion richer every month.

    For the mere price of only 13% of the third world moving to Europe, this sounds like a great opportunity. Nothing can possibly go wrong.
    I love how everyone seems to think everyone would all automatically flood to Europe. Does it not occur to people that maybe someone from say Mongolia would be more comfortable in Japan or South Korea? That maybe people from Cambodia would move to Australia? That people from Somalia would happily settle in Morocco?

    All the article states is 13% of the world will move. Yes, some countries will attract more than others, but equally many of those countries, for instance USA, Australia, even parts of Western Europe, currently have a lower population density than many of the poorer countries.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    What happens when those 13% of people move. They develop a similar culture from where they came from at their destination. Then what happens? The people back home see there is a similar culture at a better place, and so more move. And more. And more.
    So then the countries will reach an equilibrium. Why is that such a terrible thing?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I love how everyone seems to think everyone would all automatically flood to Europe. Does it not occur to people that maybe someone from say Mongolia would be more comfortable in Japan or South Korea? That maybe people from Cambodia would move to Australia? That people from Somalia would happily settle in Morocco?
    Probably because those countries don't operate open borders policies and enforced their existing entry standards. Doesn't take a genius to see why people make these assumptions, which are less pie in the sky than those made by The Economist.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    I find it impossible to believe that only 13% of Indians/Mexicans/Africans would want to emigrate to the US/UK/EU given the chance.
    Do you not realise how arrogant you sound?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Do you not realise how arrogant you sound?
    Why do you feel the need to make a personal attack rather than contributing to the discussion?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    Probably because those countries don't operate open borders policies and enforced their existing entry standards. Doesn't take a genius to see why people make these assumptions, which are less pie in the sky than those made by The Economist.
    Yes, but as far as I understand the whole premise of the article is that everyone has open borders. The fact they don't is precisely why immigration in it's current form doesn't seem to be working.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Yes you're right. It's definitely a cultural thing.

    The whole "taking jobs" idea isnt about being willing to be paid less, it's about a)brits are too lazy and b) not qualified for jobs that are out of their skill range.
    I used to work alongside seasonal immigrant workers on a farm. They worked bloody hard for minimum wage, whilst living in portacabins. However, the payback was that they could go back to their home country at the end of the season with enough money saved up that they wouldn't have to work for several months. That's an entirely different employment paradigm to someone who wants to live permanently in the UK. Rather than criticising Brits at every available opportunity, I'd suggest you think a little more about the effect large pools of cheap labour have on wages.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    My take is 13% of people wanting to move is actually a very sizable amount and this will go up as friends and members of their families move and the recipients country has more people who speak the language/sell the food/have the religious groups etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    I used to work alongside seasonal immigrant workers on a farm. They worked bloody hard for minimum wage, whilst living in portacabins. However, the payback was that they could go back to their home country at the end of the season with enough money saved up that they wouldn't have to work for several months. That's an entirely different employment paradigm to someone who wants to live permanently in the UK. Rather than criticising Brits at every available opportunity, I'd suggest you think a little more about the effect large pools of cheap labour have on wages.
    You're right, remittances are an issue. But you're also ignoring the productivity and output they produce, salary does not negate that.

    Immigrants still contribute more in taxes than they take from the state, that's excluding the benefits gained from them spending in the economy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Well, I'd love to hear some of your opinions using this great unfaulterred economics knowledge that you indirectly brandish and flaunt around like some high-brow trophy. Please, educate us oh educated one.
    With that attitude im afraid you're of to the headmaster's office.

    No, seriously, read a book.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    im not sure about the 78trn dollar stat but i do agree that freedom of movement > no freedom of movement. it gives people hope&opportunites and also makes the labour market more competitive benefitting the end consumer.

    salaries/wages will be impacted for sure, due to the increases in supply of labour, but i agree that 13ish% would actually move so wages/salaries won't be impacted that heavily
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    So then the countries will reach an equilibrium. Why is that such a terrible thing?
    We have over 55 million white British people in the UK. The total population of already 75 million. We have an extreme population problem, our population density is 395 people per square/km. That's almost double China btw. The problems are exacerbated by the welfare state.

    By equilibrium, I assume you mean an immigrant:non-immigrant ratio of 50:50 ish. To reach this we would need to bring in around 20-30 million more immigrants, or decrease the white population by 20-30 million (and that's not happening). We simply can't do this with a resounding welfare state and already huge population issues.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    With that attitude im afraid you're of to the headmaster's office.

    No, seriously, read a book.
    Oh common! I expected a better reply than that! Something witty at least. Thoroughly disappointed, 3/10.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because Germany recent relaxation of its borders ended well didn't it
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    Why do you feel the need to make a personal attack rather than contributing to the discussion?
    I'm not making a personal attack, I'm saying that your assumption that nobody in a developing country would think twice about dropping everything to immigrate to your country is extremely arrogant, which it is. If we're on the topic of not contributing to the discussion, I'd like you to explain how your post was constructive, given that you've not provided any evidence or explanation as to what factual basis you're basing your claim on that the 13% figure is inaccurate. What part of Gallup's methodology do you take issue with?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I'm not making a personal attack, I'm saying that your assumption that nobody in a developing country would think twice about dropping everything to immigrate to your country is extremely arrogant, which it is. If we're on the topic of not contributing to the discussion, I'd like you to explain how your post was constructive, given that you've not provided any evidence or explanation as to what factual basis you're basing your claim on that the 13% figure is inaccurate. What part of Gallup's methodology do you take issue with?
    It came across as a personal attack, I'll leave it for the Community Team to decide.

    You're also now putting words into my mouth. I don't believe 13% to be an accurate figure but nowhere have I claimed everyone would want to emigrate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    We have over 55 million white British people in the UK. The total population of already 75 million. We have an extreme population problem, our population density is 395 people per square/km. That's almost double China btw. The problems are exacerbated by the welfare state.

    By equilibrium, I assume you mean an immigrant:non-immigrant ratio of 50:50 ish. To reach this we would need to bring in around 20-30 million more immigrants, or decrease the white population by 20-30 million (and that's not happening). We simply can't do this with a resounding welfare state and already huge population issues.
    By equilibrium I mean a point where it is as desirable to live anywhere in the world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    By equilibrium I mean a point where it is as desirable to live anywhere in the world.
    Oh well, of course, I want to reach equilibrium. But in my view, free movement is far from the answer. Some countries, especially countries with population issues like the UK, NEED strict immigration laws... and thank god we do. If free movement was allowed, the UK would almost certainly be worse off.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Oh well, of course, I want to reach equilibrium. But in my view, free movement is far from the answer. Some countries, especially countries with population issues like the UK, NEED strict immigration laws... and thank god we do. If free movement was allowed, the UK would almost certainly be worse off.
    And if it were worse off, people would start moving out, including native white people, to places such as America, which has plenty of room. Sure, it's an idyllic scenario where every country has open borders and this is a possibility, but that's pretty much the point of the original article; an idyllic scenario that would be beneficial if everyone would just agree and go for it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2018
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.