5 ms·

All I can say is, if you want to maintain that standard of living in western democracies, you'd better get used to immigration.

ArtemZ 10y ago
What is the connection between high living standards and immigration?
- collyw 10y ago
  My simplistic version is that our economy is basically a ponzi scheme that needs new entrants to fuel the "growth".
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    Actually not the children, as they are the expense It needs the people in the productive age. Immigration of young adults is economically the best solution in short term as it leaves the expense of growing them up to the other societies.
    - collyw 10y ago
      Assuming they will be economically active.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        Well, yes. And do not trying intentionally destroy your society.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > It needs the people in the productive age. Immigration of young adults is economically the best solution in short term as it leaves the expense of growing them up to the other societies. And introduces pension problems for pension systems that are based on an inter-generational contract.
CalRobert 10y ago
Can you elaborate? I'm pretty in favour of open borders as an immigrant myself but that statement could do with some supporting evidence.
- Lazare 10y ago
  It's not so much a question of evidence as basic math. Imagine a society with 100 people. A working adult can create 50 widgets per year, and there's 15 kids and 5 retirees. The economy produce 80 * 50 = 4000 widgets per year, which gives a per capita income of 40 widgets. You can have whatever tax, welfare, or income redistribution policies you like, but there's only 4000 widgets to go around. Great. Now let's say 5 new kids are born, the 15 existing kids become adults, 30 adults retire, and the 5 existing retirees die. Bonus: we got 3% better at making widgets, so a working adult makes 51.5 widgets. We now have 100 people, 5 kids, 30 retirees, and 65 working adults. Total widget production = 65 * 51.5 = 3,347.5 widgets per year, or a per capita income of ~33.5 widgets. Again, policies can change the distribution, but not the total number. What we're seeing is that if an aging workforce lowers the overall workforce participation rate, as a society, we get poorer. If productivity increases, as a society we get richer. It's just a question of which change is larger, and in the US (and Europe, and much of Asia) the answer is the aging workforce. The demographics are clear and brutal. The most critical metric is the ratio of current workers to retirees; that number is climbing and is going to continue without a policy change that somehow reduces the number of retirees, or increases the numbers of workers. Large scale skilled immigration might do the latter, but failing that, we're basically out of ideas. This article spells it out fairly nicely I think: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-10/innovation-falls-and-retirees-pay-the-price https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-10/innovatio...
  - agd 10y ago
    What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there. If immigration falls or stop rising you suddenly have a problem. A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).
adrianN 10y ago
Or robots? Or just the same production per person with a smaller number of people?
eveningcoffee 10y ago
Maybe you would elaborate this? I would rather say that the population growth that is only taking place outside of western democracies (with some minor exemptions), is the main reason behind the loss in living quality, as the explosion of the world wide population living below acceptable western standards puts the pressure on the wages all over the globe. Being it through imported goods made in a country with much lower wage standards, or through stagnating wages of low skilled jobs due to immigration (please note that I just state that somebody new in some society is most of the time in more difficult position and is more willing to accept an offer considered not acceptable for longer time residents). I understand that many societies value highly a human life but as irony had made the human life less valuable around the globe though this worldview.
WildUtah 10y ago
The other countries with well educated young people that could contribute also have falling populations. The nations of Africa (and similar Guatemala, Bolivia, Gaza, Afghanistan) with high illiteracy, high violence, and near zero higher education are the ones that have extra emigrants to offer. That kind of immigration is the only kind available and it isn't going to help anyone support higher standards of living in the short term.
qwrusz 10y ago
Just curious if anyone has recent examples where a region's standard of living has shifted to trend downward for any reason?
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Yes. 1. Corruption in Zimbabwe. Commercial farmers have been abandoning productive land and the country is getting poorer. 2. Communism in Cuba, Venezuela, SE Asia, and other regions over the past fifty years has ruined developing economies and made them worse. Most of those governments have fallen and things are improving again, but communism certainly has the power to ruin a country. I'm sure there are others. Technological progress has give us a strong underlying upward trend around the world lately but sufficiently bad government can occasionally reverse the benefits of progress temporarily.
  - qwrusz 10y ago
    Thanks, these are good examples. It's amazing how long some of these corrupt governments have stayed in power. Will be interesting to see what happens if/when there's a change in governance.
    - AlaskaCasey 10y ago
      It's easy to stay in power when you have complete control over the news and propaganda machines. Using Venezuela as an example, the country is one of the richest in the world in natural resources, but 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth.
      - hx87 10y ago
        And in most cases, communism just changes who the 1% are and leaves the distribution unchanged.
Zigurd 10y ago
Japan appears to contradict this. There might be a debt default, but that will mostly be contained within Japan.
- erispoe 10y ago
  Because Japanese debt is owned by Japanese households, yes. But if it decreases their standard of living, it's not a contradiction, it supports the point. They will pay the price of refusing immigration.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Japan's problems are more due to refusing to risk short-term social disharmony in exchange for long term socioeconomic benefits.

ArtemZ 10y ago

What is the connection between high living standards and immigration?

collyw 10y ago
My simplistic version is that our economy is basically a ponzi scheme that needs new entrants to fuel the "growth".
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Actually not the children, as they are the expense It needs the people in the productive age. Immigration of young adults is economically the best solution in short term as it leaves the expense of growing them up to the other societies.
  - collyw 10y ago
    Assuming they will be economically active.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      Well, yes. And do not trying intentionally destroy your society.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > It needs the people in the productive age. Immigration of young adults is economically the best solution in short term as it leaves the expense of growing them up to the other societies. And introduces pension problems for pension systems that are based on an inter-generational contract.

CalRobert 10y ago

Can you elaborate? I'm pretty in favour of open borders as an immigrant myself but that statement could do with some supporting evidence.

Lazare 10y ago
It's not so much a question of evidence as basic math. Imagine a society with 100 people. A working adult can create 50 widgets per year, and there's 15 kids and 5 retirees. The economy produce 80 * 50 = 4000 widgets per year, which gives a per capita income of 40 widgets. You can have whatever tax, welfare, or income redistribution policies you like, but there's only 4000 widgets to go around. Great. Now let's say 5 new kids are born, the 15 existing kids become adults, 30 adults retire, and the 5 existing retirees die. Bonus: we got 3% better at making widgets, so a working adult makes 51.5 widgets. We now have 100 people, 5 kids, 30 retirees, and 65 working adults. Total widget production = 65 * 51.5 = 3,347.5 widgets per year, or a per capita income of ~33.5 widgets. Again, policies can change the distribution, but not the total number. What we're seeing is that if an aging workforce lowers the overall workforce participation rate, as a society, we get poorer. If productivity increases, as a society we get richer. It's just a question of which change is larger, and in the US (and Europe, and much of Asia) the answer is the aging workforce. The demographics are clear and brutal. The most critical metric is the ratio of current workers to retirees; that number is climbing and is going to continue without a policy change that somehow reduces the number of retirees, or increases the numbers of workers. Large scale skilled immigration might do the latter, but failing that, we're basically out of ideas. This article spells it out fairly nicely I think: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-10/innovation-falls-and-retirees-pay-the-price https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-10/innovatio...
- agd 10y ago
  What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there. If immigration falls or stop rising you suddenly have a problem. A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).

adrianN 10y ago

Or robots? Or just the same production per person with a smaller number of people?

eveningcoffee 10y ago

Maybe you would elaborate this? I would rather say that the population growth that is only taking place outside of western democracies (with some minor exemptions), is the main reason behind the loss in living quality, as the explosion of the world wide population living below acceptable western standards puts the pressure on the wages all over the globe. Being it through imported goods made in a country with much lower wage standards, or through stagnating wages of low skilled jobs due to immigration (please note that I just state that somebody new in some society is most of the time in more difficult position and is more willing to accept an offer considered not acceptable for longer time residents). I understand that many societies value highly a human life but as irony had made the human life less valuable around the globe though this worldview.

WildUtah 10y ago

The other countries with well educated young people that could contribute also have falling populations. The nations of Africa (and similar Guatemala, Bolivia, Gaza, Afghanistan) with high illiteracy, high violence, and near zero higher education are the ones that have extra emigrants to offer. That kind of immigration is the only kind available and it isn't going to help anyone support higher standards of living in the short term.

qwrusz 10y ago

Just curious if anyone has recent examples where a region's standard of living has shifted to trend downward for any reason?

WildUtah 10y ago
Yes. 1. Corruption in Zimbabwe. Commercial farmers have been abandoning productive land and the country is getting poorer. 2. Communism in Cuba, Venezuela, SE Asia, and other regions over the past fifty years has ruined developing economies and made them worse. Most of those governments have fallen and things are improving again, but communism certainly has the power to ruin a country. I'm sure there are others. Technological progress has give us a strong underlying upward trend around the world lately but sufficiently bad government can occasionally reverse the benefits of progress temporarily.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  Thanks, these are good examples. It's amazing how long some of these corrupt governments have stayed in power. Will be interesting to see what happens if/when there's a change in governance.
  - AlaskaCasey 10y ago
    It's easy to stay in power when you have complete control over the news and propaganda machines. Using Venezuela as an example, the country is one of the richest in the world in natural resources, but 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth.
    - hx87 10y ago
      And in most cases, communism just changes who the 1% are and leaves the distribution unchanged.

Zigurd 10y ago

Japan appears to contradict this. There might be a debt default, but that will mostly be contained within Japan.

erispoe 10y ago
Because Japanese debt is owned by Japanese households, yes. But if it decreases their standard of living, it's not a contradiction, it supports the point. They will pay the price of refusing immigration.
- hx87 10y ago
  Japan's problems are more due to refusing to risk short-term social disharmony in exchange for long term socioeconomic benefits.