Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Yeah sorry, not really getting your point.
Yes, the government should ensure that the quality of life is optimized, but it is far from obvious that repressive migration policies achieve this goal.
How do you not get that?
I just pointed out that a country that enjoys a first world economy has many citizens who are just a paycheck away from losing their apartments and living in total poverty?
They are dependent on policies that favor them in thei rown countries for hiring or else they would have no jobs.
As it stands, low skill labor jobs in most circumstances never go to foreigners; there are very strict visa laws about this in South Korea.
One of the more prosperous economies in the world basically already takes my position on migrants.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra BTW, I don't know what you think a physicist makes, but I don't think it's very different from a coal miner's salary. I get around $65k before taxes, although that is a junior position of course.
Bringing up your income on a chat forum to assure us that it is not insubstantial?
Very déclassé, and a little surprising, Kazet. Maybe you are not from European or American society, though, and you are from one of these places that still signals very hard on these sorts of things so IDK. I wouldn't judge you either way, man, but this isn't going to win people points.
A very prosperous economy doesn't have a robust welfare system and is already guarding its borders quite heavily and totally disinterested in mass migration. Its economy isn't as strong as people think it is.
it is rational to curb immigration because it poses threats to prosperity.
... What are you missing here?
Check out this tasty link as well:
"Non-Western immigrants consume 59% of Denmark's Tax Revenue"
https://www.dailywire.com/news/16816/non-western-immigrants-consume-59-denmarks-tax-joseph-curl
Think about what Denmark's tax revenue is spent on. Then think about how likely it is that 59% of it gets "consumed" by "non-western immigrants." It would take childlike naïveté (tinged with you-know-what) to do more than scoff at such a claim.
I haven't read the "Swiss study on immigration." Link directly to it and I might have a look.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Yes, population growth nearly always leads to economic growth.
The problem with this sentence is that what counts is growth per capita. It's not going to help having economic growth that does not keep pace with growth in population. It also depends on what the effects of the availability of migrant workers is. "Nearly always" isn't good enough as population growth without economic growth straightforwardly means more people below the poverty line. Likely the migrants themselves.
A problem in the UK at the moment is that companies are hiring people rather than investing in new machinery and processes, as a consequence of which productivity has been stagnant since the financial crisis. Companies know they can hire immigrants relatively cheaply. If the failure to invest continues British industry is going to find itself uncompetitive, and productivity stagnation will turn into growth stagnation, or even contraction. That will be a situation that it will be difficult for us to dig ourselves out of, because the implied profit squeeze will prevent investment later. Clearly this is the fault of the shortsightedness of British boardrooms rather than the immigrants themselves, but the availability of migrant workers drives it.
So I'm wary of economic justifications for immigration.
Originally posted by @deepthought The problem with this sentence is that what counts is growth per capita. It's not going to help having economic growth that does not keep pace with growth in population. It also depends on what the effects of the availability of migrant workers is. "Nearly always" isn't good enough as population growth without economic growth straightforwardly means ...[text shortened]... ability of migrant workers drives it.
So I'm wary of economic justifications for immigration.
The problem with this sentence is that what counts is growth per capita.
Sure, I agree with that. I was just responding to the suggestion otherwise.
A problem in the UK at the moment [...]
The main problems in the U.K. in terms of productivity (in its most fundamental sense, i.e. utility gained per hour worked) is that much of it is wasted through taxation being insufficiently progressive and through class-based restrictions to education admission. Migration barely makes a difference in this context.
Bernie Sanders: Economic Nationalism Flashback
07 Sep '18 20:28
Back to Top