3 ms·

From the linked paper: "The stock of refugees has a stronger presence of children; in 2015, for instance, more than half of refugees were under the age of 18."

From the linked paper: "The stock of refugees has a stronger presence of children; in 2015, for instance, more than half of refugees were under the age of 18." So a part of the migrants would not influence positively the GDP for a few years and put more pressure on public welfare system, as well as public schools and hospitals. Also I think that, whether low or high skilled, when you have high unemployment rate (above 10%), more workers just mean more people unemployed, so more social benefits, that the various welfare states won't be able to assume, since they all are in deficit. Also can you point in the document where this affirmation is made?

denzil_correa 10y ago
Right there in the abstract > a common theme is that, despite the negative short-term impact on recipient economies, they offer potential gains in the long term. In addition, Figure 4.21 (and surrounding text) explicitly mentions the positive longer term growth effects due to migrants. > So a part of the migrants would not influence positively the GDP for a few years and put more pressure on public welfare system, as well as public schools and hospitals. That is assuming the current system is not good enough. > whether low or high skilled, when you have high unemployment rate (above 10%), Generally, migrants move to countries with opportunities.
- throwaway1892 10y ago
  Ok, thank you for the information. > That is assuming the current system is not good enough. Where I am, the current system seems sorely lacking, for example regarding the number of homeless, social mobility, existing public infrastructure, education, healthcare... > Generally, migrants move to countries with opportunities. Apparently 10% of unemployment is enough of an opportunity for migrant going to Western Europe (Spain: 22.7%, France: 10.5%, Italy: 12.4%, Greece: 25.6, Portugal: 13%...). But I think the migrants going in those countries are mostly refugees, which might not stay long term, so not providing the economic benefits you talked about. Edit: So, it is possible that the afflux of refugees in Western Europe will cause a diminution of social benefits since it would strain even more a failing system and not provide any long term economic benefit since they would have gone back home, once the crisis finished (and I hope it will end before long). Edit II: assuming, of course, that the majority of migrants arriving in Europe are refugees, which seems to be supported by the figures provided by the documents ("The European Union also received an unparalleled number of refugees recently—about 1.25 million first-time asylum " p. 14).
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    The original article points to an overall positive effect of migration including refugees. I don't see how this will change. That said, the falling social security system in Europe is not due to refugees but to how the system is built.
    - throwaway1892 10y ago
      I agree that long-term migration have a positive effect on the economy. Short term migration, on the other hand, is a little bit more disputed since most migrant will send money back to their home country. But for the refugees, since the country where they arrive is often not chosen because of economic opportunities, but because of politic/proximity, and the fact that refugees migration is mostly short term, I think that refugee migration has a negative effect. (see for example the countries with a lot of refugees in the Middle-East, such as Lebanon or Jordan). I agree that the failing of the welfare state in Europe is caused by how it is built, but the refugee crisis might broke the system beyond repair.

denzil_correa 10y ago

Right there in the abstract > a common theme is that, despite the negative short-term impact on recipient economies, they offer potential gains in the long term. In addition, Figure 4.21 (and surrounding text) explicitly mentions the positive longer term growth effects due to migrants. > So a part of the migrants would not influence positively the GDP for a few years and put more pressure on public welfare system, as well as public schools and hospitals. That is assuming the current system is not good enough. > whether low or high skilled, when you have high unemployment rate (above 10%), Generally, migrants move to countries with opportunities.

throwaway1892 10y ago
Ok, thank you for the information. > That is assuming the current system is not good enough. Where I am, the current system seems sorely lacking, for example regarding the number of homeless, social mobility, existing public infrastructure, education, healthcare... > Generally, migrants move to countries with opportunities. Apparently 10% of unemployment is enough of an opportunity for migrant going to Western Europe (Spain: 22.7%, France: 10.5%, Italy: 12.4%, Greece: 25.6, Portugal: 13%...). But I think the migrants going in those countries are mostly refugees, which might not stay long term, so not providing the economic benefits you talked about. Edit: So, it is possible that the afflux of refugees in Western Europe will cause a diminution of social benefits since it would strain even more a failing system and not provide any long term economic benefit since they would have gone back home, once the crisis finished (and I hope it will end before long). Edit II: assuming, of course, that the majority of migrants arriving in Europe are refugees, which seems to be supported by the figures provided by the documents ("The European Union also received an unparalleled number of refugees recently—about 1.25 million first-time asylum " p. 14).
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  The original article points to an overall positive effect of migration including refugees. I don't see how this will change. That said, the falling social security system in Europe is not due to refugees but to how the system is built.
  - throwaway1892 10y ago
    I agree that long-term migration have a positive effect on the economy. Short term migration, on the other hand, is a little bit more disputed since most migrant will send money back to their home country. But for the refugees, since the country where they arrive is often not chosen because of economic opportunities, but because of politic/proximity, and the fact that refugees migration is mostly short term, I think that refugee migration has a negative effect. (see for example the countries with a lot of refugees in the Middle-East, such as Lebanon or Jordan). I agree that the failing of the welfare state in Europe is caused by how it is built, but the refugee crisis might broke the system beyond repair.