8 ms·

Makes sense. I'm of the mind the immigration allowance will prob be net good; but short term it has to negatively impact honest unemployment numbers

by wand3r 9y ago

zo1 9y ago
What "net good" do you conceive exactly? Of importing 1 million unskilled, probably uneducated individuals that wouldn't be able to speak the local language without months/years of language learning? If you have unemployment in your country then, by definition, you don't have enough jobs for the individuals already in your country. That is the whole point of the unemployment metric. To determine how well in-sync your economy is with the rate of population growth. If anything, unemployment should be a signal to kick people out, not let them in. However, neither up/down fixes it, because it's not a fixed pie. But your ratio is most certainly not going to be "net good" long-term or short-term by importing individuals that are unable to contribute.
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  As long as people are free to choose what kind of job they want to do, the optimal (from an economic sense) number for unemployment is not zero. Germany is very close to that optimal point, and it's debatable if the unemployment rate isn't actually too small.
- wand3r 9y ago
  America is pretty great and I criticise it because it is my home and I wish it to become better. It became great by allowing immigrants in; not just the smartest defectors from China, Russia and Germany but regular people. > 1 Million uneducated people If they offer education and are successful; someone like Elon Musk is 1/1 Million. Many will contribute; and some might return home in large enough numbers to bring some German culture back with them
- MarkMc 9y ago
  A newborn baby is also an unskilled, uneducated individual that wouldn't be able to speak the local language without months/years of language learning. Presumably there is a net benefit in this case. I think there is a net good to some unskilled immigration - say 1% of the population each year. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Is there some objective measure we can agree on which approximates 'net benefit'? For example, if total tax paid by these migrants over their lifetime is more than total welfare payments, would that indicate a net benefit?

Makes sense. I'm of the mind the immigration allowance will prob be net good; but short term it has to negatively impact honest unemployment numbers

by wand3r 9y ago

Makes sense. I'm of the mind the immigration allowance will prob be net good; but short term it has to negatively impact honest unemployment numbers

zo1 9y ago

What "net good" do you conceive exactly? Of importing 1 million unskilled, probably uneducated individuals that wouldn't be able to speak the local language without months/years of language learning? If you have unemployment in your country then, by definition, you don't have enough jobs for the individuals already in your country. That is the whole point of the unemployment metric. To determine how well in-sync your economy is with the rate of population growth. If anything, unemployment should be a signal to kick people out, not let them in. However, neither up/down fixes it, because it's not a fixed pie. But your ratio is most certainly not going to be "net good" long-term or short-term by importing individuals that are unable to contribute.

davrosthedalek 9y ago
As long as people are free to choose what kind of job they want to do, the optimal (from an economic sense) number for unemployment is not zero. Germany is very close to that optimal point, and it's debatable if the unemployment rate isn't actually too small.
wand3r 9y ago
America is pretty great and I criticise it because it is my home and I wish it to become better. It became great by allowing immigrants in; not just the smartest defectors from China, Russia and Germany but regular people. > 1 Million uneducated people If they offer education and are successful; someone like Elon Musk is 1/1 Million. Many will contribute; and some might return home in large enough numbers to bring some German culture back with them
MarkMc 9y ago
A newborn baby is also an unskilled, uneducated individual that wouldn't be able to speak the local language without months/years of language learning. Presumably there is a net benefit in this case. I think there is a net good to some unskilled immigration - say 1% of the population each year. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Is there some objective measure we can agree on which approximates 'net benefit'? For example, if total tax paid by these migrants over their lifetime is more than total welfare payments, would that indicate a net benefit?