Economics and Emigration

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:20 am

A look from a different angle:

Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?

Abstract
What is the greatest single class of distortions in the global economy? One contender for this title is the tightly binding constraints on emigration from poor countries. Vast numbers of people in low-income countries want to emigrate from those countries but cannot. How large are the economic losses caused by barriers to emigration? Research on this question has been distinguished by its rarity and obscurity, but the few estimates we have should make economists' jaws hit their desks. The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital. When it comes to policies that restrict emigration, there appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:05 pm

It is known. What's far harder to quantify are the losses to culture, language, community and other intangibles that attend shifting people around like nameless faceless economic units.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:07 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:05 pm It is known. What's far harder to quantify are the losses to culture, language, community and other intangibles that attend shifting people around like nameless faceless economic units.

These are people that want to move (like my relatives from Eastern Europe in the early 1900s) not people being forced to move.

Culture and language doesn't put food on the table at the end of the day, unfortunately.

It was an interesting article. Reminded me of an argument about health care and how our system of getting health care from employers creates friction that inhibits the movement of people to places and jobs where they'd be better off and more effectively employed. Friction = bad, in general.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:09 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:05 pm It is known. What's far harder to quantify are the losses to culture, language, community and other intangibles that attend shifting people around like nameless faceless economic units.
These are people that want to move (like my relatives from Eastern Europe in the early 1900s) not people being forced to move.

Generally speaking, they do not want to move, they have to move because their country of origin is so poor, mismanaged, polluted, oppressive, or overpopulated that they do not have a choice. Further, the people in their destination country don't want them either, aside from the bankers, financiers, and tycoons. Instead of importing people en masse we should export birth control and family planning. The US total fertility rate per woman is 1.87, the Somali rate it 6.3. Do you really think it's a good idea to turn the US into Somalia? Because all you need to do is add a few Somalians and wait a generation or two.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:07 pmCulture and language doesn't put food on the table at the end of the day, unfortunately.

Man does not live by bread alone. We are not just economic units. We are not defined by consumption. You impoverish yourself if you believe that this is the case. Culture is the organic legacy of thousands of generations, encompassing language, music, art, science, and a million other things which, woven together likes strands, form meaningful lives. All of that collapses when you start destroying culture with mass immigration.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:07 pm It was an interesting article. Reminded me of an argument about health care and how our system of getting health care from employers creates friction that inhibits the movement of people to places and jobs where they'd be better off and more effectively employed. Friction = bad, in general.

Another thing that is bad, in general, is social scientists' ability to extrapolate policy from raw data.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:09 pmMan does not live by bread alone. We are not just economic units. We are not defined by consumption.

Tell that to people starving in various countries.

Climate change is going to really force the issue, as climatological haves and have-nots move around and places like Bangladesh, already about 2" above sea level on a good day, get overwashed. Other places will see drought destroy agriculture. Mass migration of populations to follow.

You impoverish yourself if you believe that this is the case. Culture is the organic legacy of thousands of generations, encompassing language, music, art, science, and a million other things which, woven together likes strands, form meaningful lives. All of that collapses when you start destroying culture with mass immigration.

It is a Non Sequitur that immigration = cultural destruction. A great example goes on right around me...the Amish. They maintain their unique culture while still living in our community. Etc.

But I agree with you that money spent making wherever they are now less of a shithole is money well spent. I agree they don't really want to leave their homelands either. A place like Somalia, for example, is very tribal with deep, deep roots that make our cultural ties look superficial, and things have to be bad for them to want to leave. Things we can do to help them not to want to leave are good.

Helping countries to develop also help lower that 6.3 kids/woman statistic. Higher income = fewer kids in general, oddly enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

The inverse relationship between income and fertility has been termed a demographic-economic paradox. Thomas Malthus, in his book An Essay on the Principle of Population, proposed that greater means (higher income) would enable the production of more offspring (a higher fertility rate). However, roughly speaking, nations or subpopulations with higher GDP per capita are observed to have a lower fertility rate (see the chart). This is the paradox.[7]

Malthus held that in order to prevent widespread suffering, from famine for example, what he called "moral restraint" (which included abstinence) was required. The demographic-economic paradox suggests that reproductive restraint arises naturally as a consequence of economic progress...

Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."[

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:24 pm

Thank you for the discussion, it's fun and interesting to me and I hope to you.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pm
Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:09 pmMan does not live by bread alone. We are not just economic units. We are not defined by consumption.
Tell that to people starving in various countries.

Starvation is not addressed by mass migration. Shall we move on? My point, which you miss, is that material considerations are not the only ones.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pm Climate change is going to really force the issue, as climatological haves and have-nots move around and places like Bangladesh, already about 2" above sea level on a good day, get overwashed. Other places will see drought destroy agriculture. Mass migration of populations to follow.

Too bad for them. We're not going to overcome the challenges of climate change by opening the floodgates, increasing consumption and pollution, and why us? Let them move to China, it's right next door, and who by the way is the number one contributor of greenhouse gasses. Nobody has yet to explain to me any compelling reason why the US or Europe has any obligation to take on the burden of these places.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pm It is a Non Sequitur that immigration = cultural destruction. A great example goes on right around me...the Amish. They maintain their unique culture while still living in our community. Etc.

Tell that to the American Indian, Australian Aborigine, or the Hawaiian. You're wrong, you know it, and that's all there is to that. Mass immigration means exactly cultural destruction.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pmBut I agree with you that money spent making wherever they are now less of a shithole is money well spent. I agree they don't really want to leave their homelands either. A place like Somalia, for example, is very tribal with deep, deep roots that make our cultural ties look superficial, and things have to be bad for them to want to leave. Things we can do to help them not to want to leave are good.

Helping countries to develop also help lower that 6.3 kids/woman statistic. Higher income = fewer kids in general, oddly enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
The inverse relationship between income and fertility has been termed a demographic-economic paradox. Thomas Malthus, in his book An Essay on the Principle of Population, proposed that greater means (higher income) would enable the production of more offspring (a higher fertility rate). However, roughly speaking, nations or subpopulations with higher GDP per capita are observed to have a lower fertility rate (see the chart). This is the paradox.[7]

Malthus held that in order to prevent widespread suffering, from famine for example, what he called "moral restraint" (which included abstinence) was required. The demographic-economic paradox suggests that reproductive restraint arises naturally as a consequence of economic progress...

You are confused. Malthus held that there were two checks on famine: preventative and positive. Preventative checks are things like family planning and birth control; positive checks were things like war and pestilence. When you allow the pressure valve of mass migration, you prevent either of those mechanisms from acting on the population, you merely defer the problem to broader and more critical phase. Much better to isolate this problem than to let it spread, with all the environmental and cultural destruction that it results in.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 pmKaran Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."

Contraceptives are the best contraceptive. Our objective should be to peacefully depopulate the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, not invite it over to stay.

terra · Post by **terra** » Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:09 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:09 pm Man does not live by bread alone. We are not just economic units. We are not defined by consumption. You impoverish yourself if you believe that this is the case. Culture is the organic legacy of thousands of generations, encompassing language, music, art, science, and a million other things which, woven together likes strands, form meaningful lives. All of that collapses when you start destroying culture with mass immigration.

This.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:53 pm

terra wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:09 pm
Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:09 pm Man does not live by bread alone. We are not just economic units. We are not defined by consumption. You impoverish yourself if you believe that this is the case. Culture is the organic legacy of thousands of generations, encompassing language, music, art, science, and a million other things which, woven together likes strands, form meaningful lives. All of that collapses when you start destroying culture with mass immigration.
This.

Ugh, like it is possible to make a culture disappear without making the people disappear, which is what really happened with the Hawaiians, Aussie Aborigines, and Native Americans, thanks in part to our western diseases which pretty much did the hard lifting of killing them off. And conquering is not assimilation.

The history of human-kind is the history of cultures interacting and stealing each other's good ideas, continually evolving. Before Columbus bumped into the new world, Italy had no tomato sauce and Thailand had no hot peppers. Mexico had no rice. Ireland had no potatoes. Yet you'd think they'd been part of each culture for thousands of generations now.

You'd think Santa Claus and celebration of a White Christmas was an activity of the Egyptian pyramid builders, they way it has completely wormed itself into our culture and even around much of the world, and not mostly a creation by Madison Avenue to increase consumption.

And there's plenty of culture that deserves ditching too. Female genital mutilation, anybody? Southern slave plantation culture. Etc.

Tradition unhindered by progress need not be a positive.

Bobby · Post by **Bobby** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:48 pm

Female genital mutilation wasn`t a thing in Sweden decades past,but we have cases now.Wonder why?

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:59 pm

Bobby wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:48 pm Female genital mutilation wasn`t a thing in Sweden decades past...

I've seen Swedish porn, and so find that hard to believe.

...but we have cases now.Wonder why?

Is it legal? do Swedes tolerate it?

Sweden has and is doing a shitty job of assimilating and integration, and needs to do better as a start. And of course Muslims need to stop slicing and dicing.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:51 am

My 20 cents, in no particular order.

This article looks at immigration from a different perspective, which I can illustrate by a personal example. I left USSR in 1990, mostly for economical reasons. We were not starving, but doctor's salary in that country at the time was truly miserable. And so after going through necessary exams, the required studying and more exams (in two countries) I became a specialist in anaesthesiology. Due to the value difference between the Australian and Russian currencies I can financially support my mom and help other relatives. This, in turn, improves her spending power and has a positive effect on the economy of Russia. As more Russians in Australia do the same - the larger and more significant the effect. Couple of years ago we lent my wife's niece some money interest free, so that she could buy a condo in the Moscow suburb. She is a young professional and was considering emigration, but now she doesn't. In this case our ability to help improved her condition and actually reduced the brain drain of Russia, even if by one drop.

There are scores of Russian expats, and I believe the cumulative effects of their help to relatives in Russia has a significant economic impact. Improving the standard of living in Russia and, in turn, reducing the number of people who want to emigrate. It improves tax revenue of Russia and increases its fraction - that is left after every bureaucrat takes his share out of the jar - that is spent to improve the infrastructure. For less developed countries the impact of immigrants supporting their families is higher.

Now, what's my impact on the culture of Australia? Am I robbing this country of its heritage or enriching it? In the recent years Australia has experienced what you can definitely call mass immigration: about 4 million immigrants in the last 10 years, to the country with the population of 20 million, 25% influx. Does Australia experience cultural decline? I surely don't think so. If anything it enriched it. Mind you, there are enough people lamenting about the Chinese and Muslims "taking over", which is complete bullshit. Every young doctor of Asian or Mediterranean origin speaks with the typical Australian accent and the vast majority of them clearly pick up local behavioral patterns: obedience, following the rules and political correctness.

I still think the biggest problem is the media. Journalists don't talk about good aspects of immigration, but are quick to pick up the bad apples. Next week I am going hunting with several Lebanese friends, all second generation immigrants. Couple of surgeons I work with are fairly devout Muslims, but they keep it personal, just like local Christians keep their religious ideas personal. Another surgeon is a Pakistani, nominal Muslim. Drinks beer and eats pork. Vast majority of immigrants want one thing: a decent life for themselves and their families.

As far as American Indians and Australian Aborigines are concerned, they are the victims of an invasion, not mass immigration. Europeans came with weapons and took over, and none of them applied for a Green Card. A better example is mass immigration to America in the 20th century, which without a doubt enriched USA and contributed to what it is today.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:27 am

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:51 am My 20 cents, in no particular order.

This article looks at immigration from a different perspective, which I can illustrate by a personal example. I left USSR in 1990, mostly for economical reasons. We were not starving, but doctor's salary in that country at the time was truly miserable. And so after going through necessary exams, the required studying and more exams (in two countries) I became a specialist in anaesthesiology. Due to the value difference between the Australian and Russian currencies I can financially support my mom and help other relatives. This, in turn, improves her spending power and has a positive effect on the economy of Russia. As more Russians in Australia do the same - the larger and more significant the effect. Couple of years ago we lent my wife's niece some money interest free, so that she could buy a condo in the Moscow suburb. She is a young professional and was considering emigration, but now she doesn't. In this case our ability to help improved her condition and actually reduced the brain drain of Russia, even if by one drop.

There are scores of Russian expats, and I believe the cumulative effects of their help to relatives in Russia has a significant economic impact. Improving the standard of living in Russia and, in turn, reducing the number of people who want to emigrate. It improves tax revenue of Russia and increases its fraction - that is left after every bureaucrat takes his share out of the jar - that is spent to improve the infrastructure. For less developed countries the impact of immigrants supporting their families is higher.

Now, what's my impact on the culture of Australia? Am I robbing this country of its heritage or enriching it? In the recent years Australia has experienced what you can definitely call mass immigration: about 4 million immigrants in the last 10 years, to the country with the population of 20 million, 25% influx. Does Australia experience cultural decline? I surely don't think so. If anything it enriched it. Mind you, there are enough people lamenting about the Chinese and Muslims "taking over", which is complete bullshit. Every young doctor of Asian or Mediterranean origin speaks with the typical Australian accent and the vast majority of them clearly pick up local behavioral patterns: obedience, following the rules and political correctness.

I still think the biggest problem is the media. Journalists don't talk about good aspects of immigration, but are quick to pick up the bad apples. Next week I am going hunting with several Lebanese friends, all second generation immigrants. Couple of surgeons I work with are fairly devout Muslims, but they keep it personal, just like local Christians keep their religious ideas personal. Another surgeon is a Pakistani, nominal Muslim. Drinks beer and eats pork. Vast majority of immigrants want one thing: a decent life for themselves and their families.

As far as American Indians and Australian Aborigines are concerned, they are the victims of an invasion, not mass immigration. Europeans came with weapons and took over, and none of them applied for a Green Card. A better example is mass immigration to America in the 20th century, which without a doubt enriched USA and contributed to what it is today.

1. You're comparing skilled professional immigrants to low skill immigrants. Apples to oranges comparison, especially with many western nations facing a MD shortage.
2. While what you're suggesting re the US may be true over the long run, over the shorter run the US history with mass immigration is messy. Everything from: treating Chinese like shit in California; using WWII as an excuse to kick Mexicans out; riots in eastern cities among the urban poor around the time of the Civil War partially because of fear that freed slaves would compete for the shitty jobs they had (and partially as an excuse to lynch free blacks); and the nearly 90 year year struggle to control the Irish hordes (my ancestors) culminating in the rise of the KKK in the 1920's. This summary leaves a lot out.

"The period from the 1830s to the 1850s was a time of almost continuous disorder and turbulence among the urban poor. The decade from 1834–1844 saw more than 200 major gang wars in New York City alone, and in other cities the pattern was similar.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HRgnJ ... &q&f=false

Not acknowledging ugly history regarding mass immigration dooms countries to repeat it.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:03 pm

1. You're comparing skilled professional immigrants to low skill immigrants. Apples to oranges comparison, especially with many western nations facing a MD shortage.

Well, that’s his experience. We are regulars at the local Mex restaurant, where my daughter worked for a long time, and know them well. Mostly Guatamalans, including some dreamers. Even with the money they make, many send remittances to their families back home. Same for Somalis in Minnesota.

2. While what you're suggesting re the US may be true over the long run, over the shorter run the US history with mass immigration is messy. Everything from: treating Chinese like shit in California; using WWII as an excuse to kick Mexicans out; riots in eastern cities among the urban poor around the time of the Civil War partially because of fear that freed slaves would compete for the shitty jobs they had (and partially as an excuse to lynch free blacks); and the nearly 90 year year struggle to control the Irish hordes (my ancestors) culminating in the rise of the KKK in the 1920's. This summary leaves a lot out.

A lot of the mess you described is emotional, not rational. The reality is none of the fear mongering of the times came true in this cases.

But you are right in that it is predictable. To not anticipate it and prep for it is to ignore history.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:36 pm

The idea that labor markets are subject to the rules of supply and demand is emotional?

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:49 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:36 pm The idea that labor markets are subject to the rules of supply and demand is emotional?

The idea that people are emotional is factual.

Further, people make emotion-based decisions that often conflict with the rational market-based ones.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:27 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:49 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:36 pm The idea that labor markets are subject to the rules of supply and demand is emotional?
The idea that people are emotional is factual.

Further, people make emotion-based decisions that often conflict with the rational market-based ones.

Understanding that if supply of an item (unskilled labor) increases that price (wages) decreases is emotional?

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:29 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:27 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:49 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:36 pm The idea that labor markets are subject to the rules of supply and demand is emotional?
The idea that people are emotional is factual.

Further, people make emotion-based decisions that often conflict with the rational market-based ones.
Understanding that if supply of an item (unskilled labor) increases that price (wages) decreases is emotional?

Believing it blindly is.

That was the point of Sangoma's article, that empirical data rejects that simple view.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:35 pm

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:51 am My 20 cents, in no particular order.

This article looks at immigration from a different perspective, which I can illustrate by a personal example. I left USSR in 1990, mostly for economical reasons. We were not starving, but doctor's salary in that country at the time was truly miserable. And so after going through necessary exams, the required studying and more exams (in two countries) I became a specialist in anaesthesiology. Due to the value difference between the Australian and Russian currencies I can financially support my mom and help other relatives. This, in turn, improves her spending power and has a positive effect on the economy of Russia. As more Russians in Australia do the same - the larger and more significant the effect. Couple of years ago we lent my wife's niece some money interest free, so that she could buy a condo in the Moscow suburb. She is a young professional and was considering emigration, but now she doesn't. In this case our ability to help improved her condition and actually reduced the brain drain of Russia, even if by one drop.

There are scores of Russian expats, and I believe the cumulative effects of their help to relatives in Russia has a significant economic impact. Improving the standard of living in Russia and, in turn, reducing the number of people who want to emigrate. It improves tax revenue of Russia and increases its fraction - that is left after every bureaucrat takes his share out of the jar - that is spent to improve the infrastructure. For less developed countries the impact of immigrants supporting their families is higher.

Now, what's my impact on the culture of Australia? Am I robbing this country of its heritage or enriching it? In the recent years Australia has experienced what you can definitely call mass immigration: about 4 million immigrants in the last 10 years, to the country with the population of 20 million, 25% influx. Does Australia experience cultural decline? I surely don't think so. If anything it enriched it. Mind you, there are enough people lamenting about the Chinese and Muslims "taking over", which is complete bullshit. Every young doctor of Asian or Mediterranean origin speaks with the typical Australian accent and the vast majority of them clearly pick up local behavioral patterns: obedience, following the rules and political correctness.

I still think the biggest problem is the media. Journalists don't talk about good aspects of immigration, but are quick to pick up the bad apples. Next week I am going hunting with several Lebanese friends, all second generation immigrants. Couple of surgeons I work with are fairly devout Muslims, but they keep it personal, just like local Christians keep their religious ideas personal. Another surgeon is a Pakistani, nominal Muslim. Drinks beer and eats pork. Vast majority of immigrants want one thing: a decent life for themselves and their families.

As far as American Indians and Australian Aborigines are concerned, they are the victims of an invasion, not mass immigration. Europeans came with weapons and took over, and none of them applied for a Green Card. A better example is mass immigration to America in the 20th century, which without a doubt enriched USA and contributed to what it is today.

Translation: you help prop up the dictator Putin while pumping drugs into the Australian populace and keeping company with fanatical Muslims.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:25 pm

Skill is not a black and white issue. Couple of years ago I took a taxi driven by a Lebanese guy. Usual small talk, he finds out I am an anaesthetist and he tells me he used to do research in that area. What exactly? - Ryanodine receptors, malignant hyperthermia etc. Five more minutes of talking, and I realise that he knows ten times more about this than me. Now, is this guy low or high skill migrant? Even though he cannot work in science he makes a living, and his kids are very likely to get university degrees and probably will do better than the average Australian. I must say, Australian immigration authorities do a pretty decent job (even excessive) by blocking the entry to low skill immigrants. It's quite easy when you are on a remote island.

One can also argue about the moral grounds for countries blocking their borders. Who drew these lines in the first place anyway? It's especially relevant to Europe, which has been re-partitioned scores of times in several centuries. Moreover, all developed countries benefited at least to some extent from the colonial policies. Brits didn't ask for permanent residence or working visa permits when they occupied Middle East - and, hilariously, are now lamenting about the prevalence of Arabic names in England. I do not support "white privilege" part of the social justice and refuse to repent for the deeds of white grand-grandfathers centuries ago. But then the other side does have a point: your ancestors benefited from the resources of my land some time ago, now I want to share the benefits.

And yes, in the short term many things are a mess. Invasion of Iraq was (still is) a mess for Iraqis, while the USA greatly benefited from it. Was the average Iraqi granted the right to immigrate to the US? Why not? The same is relevant for the interference of the Western governments in many other conflicts - which cover most of the world.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:49 pm

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:57 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:29 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:27 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:49 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:36 pm The idea that labor markets are subject to the rules of supply and demand is emotional?
The idea that people are emotional is factual.

Further, people make emotion-based decisions that often conflict with the rational market-based ones.
Understanding that if supply of an item (unskilled labor) increases that price (wages) decreases is emotional?
Believing it blindly is.

That was the point of Sangoma's article, that empirical data rejects that simple view.

No it wasn't. The article he referenced states that the primary welfare benefits are accrued by migrants, the people the migrants send remittances to (and the impact of those remittances on the local economy), and increased labor opportunities in the migrant sending countries.

In the countries receiving migrants, he paints a different picture:

For example, does the arrival of immigrants lower wages for incumbent workers? In a U.S.
context, Borjas (2003) and Borjas and Katz (2007) argue that low-wage workers do
experience a modest decline in nominal wages from immigration. On the other side,
Card (2009) and Ottaviano and Peri (forthcoming) find that millions of recent immigrants
to the United States have caused the average worker’s nominal wages to decline
a few percent—if at all—while Cortes (2008) finds that immigration lowered the price
of a typical consumption basket about half of 1 percent. The mass migrations of the
nineteenth century likely caused a cumulative decline of 1 or 2 percentage points
each decade in wages at the destination (Hatton and Williamson, 1994).

The article's major point is that the welfare gains by the migrants and the migrant sending countries outweigh the welfare losses in the migrant receiving countries, for a net welfare benefit. In the US, who do you think is leading the charge to restrict foreign physicians from moving to the US and practicing? It's the AMA. Cesar Chavez tried to at least temporarily restrict immigration to the US by Mexican farm workers in an effort to get wages increased for farm laborers.

Notably, Borjas recently updated his work:

This article brings a new perspective to the analysis of the wage
effects of the Mariel boatlift crisis, in which an estimated 125,000
Cuban refugees migrated to Florida between April and October,
1980. The author revisits the question of wage impacts from such a
supply shock, drawing on the cumulative insights of research on the
economic impact of immigration. That literature shows that the wage
impact must be measured by carefully matching the skills of the immigrants
with those of the incumbent workforce. Given that at least 60%
of the Marielitos were high school dropouts, this article specifically
examines the wage impact for this low-skill group. This analysis overturns
the prior finding that the Mariel boatlift did not affect Miami’s
wage structure. The wage of high school dropouts in Miami dropped
dramatically, by 10 to 30%, suggesting an elasticity of wages with
respect to the number of workers between 20.5 and 21.5.

https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborja ... RR2017.pdf

There are similar effects in Jordan and Lebanon (both countries dealing with large numbers of Syrian refugees)-- Jordanian and Lebanese workers have experienced negative labor market effects (mostly getting crowded out of the market) despite heavy restrictions on Syrian refugees working. And this is in countries where the natives do not view working class labor jobs as positively as we do in the US.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/dp029_en.pdf

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:15 am

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:25 pm Skill is not a black and white issue. Couple of years ago I took a taxi driven by a Lebanese guy. Usual small talk, he finds out I am an anaesthetist and he tells me he used to do research in that area. What exactly? - Ryanodine receptors, malignant hyperthermia etc. Five more minutes of talking, and I realise that he knows ten times more about this than me. Now, is this guy low or high skill migrant? Even though he cannot work in science he makes a living, and his kids are very likely to get university degrees and probably will do better than the average Australian. I must say, Australian immigration authorities do a pretty decent job (even excessive) by blocking the entry to low skill immigrants. It's quite easy when you are on a remote island.

Have you been drinking? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:25 pm One can also argue about the moral grounds for countries blocking their borders. Who drew these lines in the first place anyway? It's especially relevant to Europe, which has been re-partitioned scores of times in several centuries. Moreover, all developed countries benefited at least to some extent from the colonial policies. Brits didn't ask for permanent residence or working visa permits when they occupied Middle East - and, hilariously, are now lamenting about the prevalence of Arabic names in England. I do not support "white privilege" part of the social justice and refuse to repent for the deeds of white grand-grandfathers centuries ago. But then the other side does have a point: your ancestors benefited from the resources of my land some time ago, now I want to share the benefits.

You are Russian, and therefore understandably ambivalent about the grand projects of your ancestors. That said, for Westerners, European and American, there's nothing to apologize for and everything to value and uphold. Our ancestors created a robust and functional society that rewards ambition, hard work, and innovation. Islamic countries manifestly do not. As far as the occupation of the Middle East goes, I'm not sure what you mean. All mankind is locked in a struggle for survival; sure Europe invaded the Middle East but then again the Middle East invaded Europe first, and we had to stop them over and over again at Tours, Vienna, Lepanto, etc. The English should be concerned with all their little Mohammeds turning their country into Englandistan. To pretend otherwise is to accept defeat. It's not gonna be united colors, we are the world bullshit, it's gonna be kill whitey and circumcise his daughter.

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:25 pm And yes, in the short term many things are a mess. Invasion of Iraq was (still is) a mess for Iraqis, while the USA greatly benefited from it. Was the average Iraqi granted the right to immigrate to the US? Why not? The same is relevant for the interference of the Western governments in many other conflicts - which cover most of the world.

You know what? You've convinced me, life really isn't fair. So maybe we can stop pretending it is now, or even should be.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:17 am

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:02 am

Yes, I have been drinking. But the point stands: skill is not black and white but a scale. The guy in my example is unskilled labour, in spite of being a scientist in his own country. Yet I believe he is a contribution to the country he immigrated to.

I wish you stopped with the Russian thing, but whatever, I guess it's too exotic to give up. If anything though Russia did less to the rest of the world than the West, Europe and America combined. And yes, sure, all Muslims want to circumcise everyone's daughter. So do the Chinese, Blacks and, of course, the Russians.

I am not trying to pretend the world is fair, everybody else seems to. I posted this article for one reason: it seems to be looking at the problem from a different perspective and comes up to counterintuitive - not necessarily undisputable - conclusions.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:46 am

Sangoma wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:02 am Yes, I have been drinking. But the point stands: skill is not black and white but a scale. The guy in my example is unskilled labour, in spite of being a scientist in his own country. Yet I believe he is a contribution to the country he immigrated to.

I wish you stopped with the Russian thing, but whatever, I guess it's too exotic to give up. If anything though Russia did less to the rest of the world than the West, Europe and America combined. And yes, sure, all Muslims want to circumcise everyone's daughter. So do the Chinese, Blacks and, of course, the Russians.

I am not trying to pretend the world is fair, everybody else seems to. I posted this article for one reason: it seems to be looking at the problem from a different perspective and comes up to counterintuitive - not necessarily undisputable - conclusions.

The conclusions aren't really counterintuitive-- he's arguing that the welfare gains for the migrant, the family of the migrant receiving the remittances back in their home country, the economy of the country where the remittances are sent, and laborers in the migrant's home country that face less job competition outweigh the welfare losses for US laborers competing with migrants.

My problem is that the article doesn't acknowledge that an unskilled worker in the US trying to establish a job history and move up in the world can't really compete with a migrant without papers working under the table making less than minimum wage. If you want to argue that it's worth the tradeoff, I can respect that (in a lot of ways I agree)-- but to refuse to explicitly acknowledge that a tradeoff exists is just lazy.

IGX

Economics and Emigration

Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration

Re: Economics and Emigration