Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Mexican illegal immigration to the United States has dropped really harshly during the Obama years (thanks Obama!), and with Trump's ascension to the throne, Mexicans no longer even speak of moving to the US any more, but Canada. But even before the electoral college elected Trump as their sovereign, Central Americans already outnumbered Mexicans among people who attempted to get into the USA.

    And you're really overestimating the pull factor there. Immigrants would need to learn a new language, adapt to a new culture, and would expect to face much discrimination. The fact is, with freedom of movement, you don't see all of Eastern Europe moving into the west despite the obvious economic differences; with freedom of movement, you don't see Honduras and El Salvador emptied into Guatemala, or Mexico for that matter, despite the latter two being incredibly safer than the former two; with freedom of movement, you don't see Brazilians flooding into the borderline first-world Argentina.

    The truth is, no matter what, most people are not willing to move, and that is without considering whether there's a push factor (a millionaire would not find much motivation to move permanently ever if his place of origin is Venezuela), and whether the pull is really that strong. That Venezuelan went to the US in hopes of a better life, then the American life actually ended his life while he's studying as a secondary schoolboy in a classroom. Things like that make people re-consider the American dream.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Since the reason for such prosperity is the utilization of good systems and infrastructure, I guess it's now time to rebuild the Empire in order to export the good systems and infrastructure on the less fortunate!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    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.
    I'm not sure why you've brought up the issue of productivity, as immigrant labour tends to be bad for productivity - cheap labour disincentives automation, which generally leads to higher productivity. Additionally, many immigrants - particularly seasonal or relatively short term immigrants - spend very little in the local economy, preferring instead to send money back to their home country.

    I do acknowledge that immigration has benefits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more immigration is better.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    https://www.economist.com/news/world...ould-be-bribed

    Some key points of the article:
    - Workers become more productive when they move from a poor country to a richer one with more efficient firms and better capital.
    - It is more difficult to transfer better institutions into countries than it is to transfer people from those countries into ones with better institutions.
    - Not all people from poor countries necessarily want to immigrate. Only 13% do.
    - Open borders can actually lead to less overcrowding overall since immigrants from countries where large families are common tend to have smaller families when they immigrate, even if those families are still bigger than those of the native population
    - Uses example of the US to show benefits of cultural enrichment brought by waves of immigration from around the world.
    - There are solutions to prevent migrants from being a strain on resources or to prevent them from enacting huge political and cultural changes, such as preventing them from voting until x years in the country (after which they will be likely to have assimilated) and preventing them from receiving welfare benefits.

    What do you think? Do you think the world would be a better place if anyone from any country was free to work in any country of their choice? Do you believe that low-skilled immigration can bring benefits to an economy?
    From a short term wealth point of view it's a no brainer. Move everybody to the most productive states (often nations with high wages that attract immigrants) and you get greater economic output globally since you have distributed labour more productively.

    The problems with your argument are a few fold..

    1) The rate of transfer may produce negative employment effects if the immigrants move too quickly for the economy to generate new jobs (in the long run though i agree that immigration does not cause unemployment).

    2) Some of the global poor are poor for a reason (sympathies for socialism, a lack of value for liberty). The Muslim world for example has as yet failed to produce a single state that is both wealthy and a free and fair democracy. The damage that an influx of 100 million Muslims (~13% of the total) would do to both democracy and wealth is unspeakably horrific to the west.

    In the long run i suspect the cultural damage done to the west would probably lead to a poorer globe as the world became less of a believer in liberty.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    x
    Some excellent points, thanks
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    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.
    Nah I don't buy it. You cant reach an equilibrium like that. Some places will always be better and worse off. In a free movement world, America wouldn't be underpopulated and it wouldn't have loads of space. Millions of Brits moving over there would make it a worse place. I'm guessing you'll say then the Americans will move somewhere else? Well, the cycle would just continue. There will always be worse places to live and better place to live. I mean, are there even any examples of equilibriums being reached domestically in countries, or even in regions, where there is free movement? I can't think of any. If it can't happen on a small stage, e.g. within the UK, how can it happen internationally?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    I'm not sure why you've brought up the issue of productivity, as immigrant labour tends to be bad for productivity - cheap labour disincentives automation, which generally leads to higher productivity. Additionally, many immigrants - particularly seasonal or relatively short term immigrants - spend very little in the local economy, preferring instead to send money back to their home country.

    I do acknowledge that immigration has benefits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more immigration is better.
    It's a big assumption to say that immigrant labour can be substituted with machinery. Can a nurse be replaced by a robot?

    You've also missed out large chunks of my argument. Convenient.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Nah I don't buy it. You cant reach an equilibrium like that. Some places will always be better and worse off. In a free movement world, America wouldn't be underpopulated and it wouldn't have loads of space. Millions of Brits moving over there would make it a worse place. I'm guessing you'll say then the Americans will move somewhere else? Well, the cycle would just continue. There will always be worse places to live and better place to live. I mean, are there even any examples of equilibriums being reached domestically in countries, or even in regions, where there is free movement? I can't think of any. If it can't happen on a small stage, e.g. within the UK, how can it happen internationally?
    Because there are clear boundaries to moving, just as there would still be on an international scale, but that's not a good reason for adding further artificial boundaries.

    And it wouldn't be some cycle where people wait for a place to become shite then all pack up and shift, population movement would be in a state of constant flux.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Because there are clear boundaries to moving, just as there would still be on an international scale, but that's not a good reason for adding further artificial boundaries.

    And it wouldn't be some cycle where people wait for a place to become shite then all pack up and shift, population movement would be in a state of constant flux.
    Why hasn't the equalibrium theory worked on a smaller scale? Within internal borders, domestically or in small regions. For example, within the UK or within the Midlands, some areas are better than others, yet there is complete free movement.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    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.
    As for the article itself, it's naive, and littered with post hoc, ergo propter hoc claims, as well as rebuffing claims it considers false but providing no evidence in the process that they're false. It recognises the risks of current open border policy and then just pivots off to some statistic it does not provide any further information about. In particular, this sort of nonsense:

    Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today.
    Compared to what? "Better" how and because of what?

    There are certainly better ways to conduct an open borders policy, including limiting it to short term work permits with no citizenship and therefore voting or welfare rights attached to it. The article touches upon this at the end. Good luck getting that to pass politically, though, in the current atmosphere where any differential treatment is chalked up to "discrimination".

    Also, will labour - in particular, low skill - be so valuable as automation gathers pace?

    They could just as eagerly call upon these poorer countries to relax their regulations strangling the development of free enterprise in them.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Why hasn't the equalibrium theory worked on a smaller scale? Within internal borders, domestically or in small regions. For example, within the UK or within the Midlands, some areas are better than others, yet there is complete free movement.
    As mentioned, because there are other boundaries to movement besides the artificial ones we put in place...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    It's a big assumption to say that immigrant labour can be substituted with machinery. Can a nurse be replaced by a robot?

    You've also missed out large chunks of my argument. Convenient.
    Many (although not all) low paid jobs can be automated, if there's sufficient incentive to do so. Laws and regulations in France and Germany make it more expensive to hire and fire workers, and so they tend to automate more and hence have higher levels of productivity.

    I'm not quite sure what you think I've missed, but I don't disagree with everything you've said. Where we disagree you seem to have ignored more of my points than I have of yours!
 
 
 
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.