3 ms·

No, again, sorry I think this is wrong. Multinationals are almost all in favour of open borders. They want a) cheap labour and some, good companies need b) hi

No, again, sorry I think this is wrong. Multinationals are almost all in favour of open borders. They want a) cheap labour and some, good companies need b) high end talent. The later is more rare though. Every big company I know is 'pro migration' I can't think of a single one that's against it. Google is more in favour of getting 'highly skilled' people, while most others are in favour of 'bodies' for cheap labour. Companies that are allowed to think long term, like large banks, want migration because 'adding bodies' is the only way most Western economies actually grow. So in Canada, CIBC, BMO, RBC (i.e. big banks) make their $ from mortgages and small business lending - there's no real way for them to grow other than 'more mortgages'. So they push for more bodies as part of national strategy. Because most political entities, most big business, and a lot of social activists are globalist in nature, it creates a friction with other groups. This friction is actually a big deal and is reshaping the political landscape in the entire Western world. It's getting to be less about left/right than it is those with a globalist view and those with a more localist view. 'Nationalists' tend to fall in the later camp.

perl4ever 8y ago
It seems to me that immigration helps raise wages. A multinational company is going to employ people in India regardless of US immigration policy. But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US, I don't think it's obvious that the multinationals do want open borders. I think it's in the interest of workers though.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. I would also add that it's wrong to assume that just because an immigrant was hired for a highly skilled job that automatically means there is a native somewhere with an equivalent skillset and able to do the job as well. It boggles the mind how some people assume that somehow every single top expert in the field happens to live in the same city/state/country where a job opening is published.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The vast majority of people migrating are not doing so for spectacular wages relative to the local market they are coming into. Average wages for immigrants is lower than the non-immigrant average in almost all societies. Because we are in high-tech, we think about 'Google' bringing in great talent, which is good ... But for most, it's not remotely that. In Canada, in the Oil Sands, they push for migration and the term they use is 'high labour input cost'. Literally high wages. So yes, in the long term migration can be good depending on a nations actual need and ability to make use of people, but it's about wages and Supply and Demand there. It's a similar story everywhere. I don't think anyone, even hardcore nationalists are pushing to get rid of bringing in talented people, the numbers are small. And the issue with H1B for example is not so much the nature of it, but that it was kind of being abused by Infosys etc. in the eyes of some. "Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US" No, this is not any kind of 'artificial depression'. India has a fundamentally different economy than the US. Those differences are not artificial.
- baud147258 8y ago
  According to you, immigration would help raise wages globally, but since it introduces lower-paid worker in a national/local labor market, it would reduce wages at this level. And I don't think we're working in a global market for labor, the supply is too unelastic to be a market.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "According to you, immigration would help raise wages globally, but since it introduces lower-paid worker in a national/local labor market" The labor market is not national or local for a multinational company. Hence, as I wrote, if people are being underpaid in some countries, it is in a multinational's interest to keep them in those countries to exploit, and not let them immigrate to where they could make more money.

perl4ever 8y ago

It seems to me that immigration helps raise wages. A multinational company is going to employ people in India regardless of US immigration policy. But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US, I don't think it's obvious that the multinationals do want open borders. I think it's in the interest of workers though.

geezerjay 8y ago
> But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. I would also add that it's wrong to assume that just because an immigrant was hired for a highly skilled job that automatically means there is a native somewhere with an equivalent skillset and able to do the job as well. It boggles the mind how some people assume that somehow every single top expert in the field happens to live in the same city/state/country where a job opening is published.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The vast majority of people migrating are not doing so for spectacular wages relative to the local market they are coming into. Average wages for immigrants is lower than the non-immigrant average in almost all societies. Because we are in high-tech, we think about 'Google' bringing in great talent, which is good ... But for most, it's not remotely that. In Canada, in the Oil Sands, they push for migration and the term they use is 'high labour input cost'. Literally high wages. So yes, in the long term migration can be good depending on a nations actual need and ability to make use of people, but it's about wages and Supply and Demand there. It's a similar story everywhere. I don't think anyone, even hardcore nationalists are pushing to get rid of bringing in talented people, the numbers are small. And the issue with H1B for example is not so much the nature of it, but that it was kind of being abused by Infosys etc. in the eyes of some. "Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US" No, this is not any kind of 'artificial depression'. India has a fundamentally different economy than the US. Those differences are not artificial.
baud147258 8y ago
According to you, immigration would help raise wages globally, but since it introduces lower-paid worker in a national/local labor market, it would reduce wages at this level. And I don't think we're working in a global market for labor, the supply is too unelastic to be a market.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "According to you, immigration would help raise wages globally, but since it introduces lower-paid worker in a national/local labor market" The labor market is not national or local for a multinational company. Hence, as I wrote, if people are being underpaid in some countries, it is in a multinational's interest to keep them in those countries to exploit, and not let them immigrate to where they could make more money.