3 ms·

> It makes it feel like a zero-sum situation, although I know that according to economic theory freedom including the freedom to migrate would allow greater eff

> It makes it feel like a zero-sum situation, although I know that according to economic theory freedom including the freedom to migrate would allow greater efficiency and wealth for all. It should but in reality it doesn't. Corruption and crime in developing countries makes them less attractive to investment and migration, so migration only goes in 1 direction. Developing countries lose skilled workers and in western countries real wages go down. For freedom to migrate to actually create greater efficiency, there would need to be no barriers to migrating to lower-cost areas (developing world), that way workers and small-business owners (and not just massive multinationals) could take advantage of lower costs in other countries. Right now the situation is far from ideal, hence why you see anti-immigration movements in every western country.

skybrian 8y ago
Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It also increases demand for services in the country they move to (not just supply of workers). More people means more customers. There are certainly places with the problems that come from over-crowding, but places that lose population tend not to be doing too well economically. The question is whether and how to take all this into account in your cost-benefit calculation. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me, without actually doing the math. And certainly you can't trust the judgement of random people who don't know much about what's going on outside of their everyday lives (which is most of us). Conclusion: this stuff is complicated. Simple answers aren't to be trusted.
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  > Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It helps the people who migrate and their families, at the cost of the development of the nation they're leaving behind who lose skilled workers, and it also hurts those left behind in the country that aren't receiving remittances as the influx of foreign cash raises costs and prices. > More people means more customers. And more workers (putting downward pressure on wages). More customers offsets that slightly by increasing demand for products, but between the effects of increasing labour supply and cash leaving the country (those remittances you brought up), is it a net positive for both sides? There are losers, where's the equilibrium? > The question is whether and how to take all this into account in your cost-benefit calculation. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me, without actually doing the math Of course you take everything into account when doing the maths. The problem is that those who make decisions are swayed by corporations and lobbyists, so they optimise for what's best for corporations, not necessarily citizens. > Conclusion: this stuff is complicated. Very. I studied it in university, it doesn't get simpler the deeper you go. And the answer of 'migration is always positive' is a simple answer, and doesn't take into account the winners and losers.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Well, we agree things are complicated. "Migration is always positive" isn't what I was claiming, just adding some factors on the positive side that you left out. It seems like you're still thinking zero-sum? Someone moving to a richer company could send back more money than they could have possibly earned if they stayed home, while also earning and spending even more in their new country. Total spending is higher in both places. There are extreme cases of immigrants who started companies (which creates jobs), became fabulously wealthy, and also helped the whole village back home. Or things could go badly, of course; I don't claim this is what usually happens. Just figuring out the total effect of remittances seems rather difficult, considering effects on trade balance. Are imports good or bad? How about exports? In general, it seems like more economic activity is good? But there exceptions.
    - Mikeb85 8y ago
      One of the issues is that even if it causes a net positive, if a minority of people are disproportionately hurt by it, is that worthwhile? Democracy is about respect for those in the minority, not just what's good for the majority.

skybrian 8y ago

Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It also increases demand for services in the country they move to (not just supply of workers). More people means more customers. There are certainly places with the problems that come from over-crowding, but places that lose population tend not to be doing too well economically. The question is whether and how to take all this into account in your cost-benefit calculation. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me, without actually doing the math. And certainly you can't trust the judgement of random people who don't know much about what's going on outside of their everyday lives (which is most of us). Conclusion: this stuff is complicated. Simple answers aren't to be trusted.

Mikeb85 8y ago
> Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It helps the people who migrate and their families, at the cost of the development of the nation they're leaving behind who lose skilled workers, and it also hurts those left behind in the country that aren't receiving remittances as the influx of foreign cash raises costs and prices. > More people means more customers. And more workers (putting downward pressure on wages). More customers offsets that slightly by increasing demand for products, but between the effects of increasing labour supply and cash leaving the country (those remittances you brought up), is it a net positive for both sides? There are losers, where's the equilibrium? > The question is whether and how to take all this into account in your cost-benefit calculation. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me, without actually doing the math Of course you take everything into account when doing the maths. The problem is that those who make decisions are swayed by corporations and lobbyists, so they optimise for what's best for corporations, not necessarily citizens. > Conclusion: this stuff is complicated. Very. I studied it in university, it doesn't get simpler the deeper you go. And the answer of 'migration is always positive' is a simple answer, and doesn't take into account the winners and losers.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Well, we agree things are complicated. "Migration is always positive" isn't what I was claiming, just adding some factors on the positive side that you left out. It seems like you're still thinking zero-sum? Someone moving to a richer company could send back more money than they could have possibly earned if they stayed home, while also earning and spending even more in their new country. Total spending is higher in both places. There are extreme cases of immigrants who started companies (which creates jobs), became fabulously wealthy, and also helped the whole village back home. Or things could go badly, of course; I don't claim this is what usually happens. Just figuring out the total effect of remittances seems rather difficult, considering effects on trade balance. Are imports good or bad? How about exports? In general, it seems like more economic activity is good? But there exceptions.
  - Mikeb85 8y ago
    One of the issues is that even if it causes a net positive, if a minority of people are disproportionately hurt by it, is that worthwhile? Democracy is about respect for those in the minority, not just what's good for the majority.