5 ms·

Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of ab

Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to stay in their own countries?

bad_user 10y ago
I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably automation and not immigrants. Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs, or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc. Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries. You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  You get automation either way - immigration only buys you ten or so years before the costs fall below even immigrant wages, after which you're left with unemployed immigrants. And lets not pretend the availability of cheap labour has nothing to do with jobs being low-end. Medical doctors sure is a funny example to give however - the USA has a lot of immigrants - how well has that worked in keeping healthcare affordable?
  - Elrac 10y ago
    Immigration is keeping health care affordable in Germany and probably a bunch of other European countries. Until the Brexit, cheap foreign labor helped keep prices low in the UK. The USA don't have a problem with immigrants - they have a problem with the runaway corruption of their political leaders. Corporate lobbyists get to write laws for representatives to rubber stamp. The reason the same drugs cost 5x more in the US than in Canada has nothing to do with immigrants.
    - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
      I'd love some statistics on this - what is the proportion of immigrants who are doctors, and how does that compare to the native population (for Germany, the U.K., etc..)? How does it depend on the immigrant's country of origin? And, if the goal is to reduce medical costs - why not accept only doctors?
      - Elrac 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected. First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that completely dwarf just that for doctors. Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane. Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of populations. The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.
- eddiedunn 10y ago
  Threats of job security might not be the only threat they see. In a society with a lot of automation where you need a high level of education just to get a job, taking in a lot of unskilled immigrants means very few of them will be able to land a job, and overall poverty will rise. Poverty is detrimental to societal security.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Immigration is more-or-less irrelevant to the common worker either way. Macroeconomic labor conditions affect the common worker more: if labor's share of income is large but immigration is high, people are fine, but if labor's share of income is low with zero immigration, people are still miserable. How much immigration is there into, say, Belarus? Practically none. How well-off is the common worker in Belarus? Miserable.

bad_user 10y ago

I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably automation and not immigrants. Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs, or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc. Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries. You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.

DarkKomunalec 10y ago
You get automation either way - immigration only buys you ten or so years before the costs fall below even immigrant wages, after which you're left with unemployed immigrants. And lets not pretend the availability of cheap labour has nothing to do with jobs being low-end. Medical doctors sure is a funny example to give however - the USA has a lot of immigrants - how well has that worked in keeping healthcare affordable?
- Elrac 10y ago
  Immigration is keeping health care affordable in Germany and probably a bunch of other European countries. Until the Brexit, cheap foreign labor helped keep prices low in the UK. The USA don't have a problem with immigrants - they have a problem with the runaway corruption of their political leaders. Corporate lobbyists get to write laws for representatives to rubber stamp. The reason the same drugs cost 5x more in the US than in Canada has nothing to do with immigrants.
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    I'd love some statistics on this - what is the proportion of immigrants who are doctors, and how does that compare to the native population (for Germany, the U.K., etc..)? How does it depend on the immigrant's country of origin? And, if the goal is to reduce medical costs - why not accept only doctors?
    - Elrac 10y ago
      I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected. First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that completely dwarf just that for doctors. Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane. Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of populations. The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.
eddiedunn 10y ago
Threats of job security might not be the only threat they see. In a society with a lot of automation where you need a high level of education just to get a job, taking in a lot of unskilled immigrants means very few of them will be able to land a job, and overall poverty will rise. Poverty is detrimental to societal security.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Immigration is more-or-less irrelevant to the common worker either way. Macroeconomic labor conditions affect the common worker more: if labor's share of income is large but immigration is high, people are fine, but if labor's share of income is low with zero immigration, people are still miserable. How much immigration is there into, say, Belarus? Practically none. How well-off is the common worker in Belarus? Miserable.