4 ms·

This is Schrodinger's Immigrant[1], often spotted in the UK Murdoch papers, sometimes even in the same edition. [1] https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigr

This is Schrodinger's Immigrant[1], often spotted in the UK Murdoch papers, sometimes even in the same edition. [1] https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/ https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/

gadders 4y ago
Yes, the lazy mid-wit dismissal used by the upper-middle classes, safe in the knowledge that they would never be replaced. Perhaps in 100,000 additional people a year, there could be groups that do either?
dasz 4y ago
Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general. "Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one. We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population. I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.
  - gadders 4y ago
    >> because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay Fixed it for you. There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay > Fixed it for you I like people who assume without knowing like anybody else, but that's not the point. These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) or in the weekend (restaurants work the most when people do not work or are on holiday etc. etc.) So they both want the money and the time. Long story short: they don't want to do the job, which is legit, but can't at the same time complain that there are no jobs IMO. > There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day. If a waiter wants the same salary of a CEO, probably she/he's shooting too high... Or they imagine that restaurants should be for billionaires only, that would shrink the number of available jobs to the bare minimum and skyrocket the skills needed to actually do the job. Schrodinger at work here too. p.s.: in my Country collective negotiation is the norm, one cannot easily pay radically different salaries for the same job. On the flip side once hired it's not as easy as in other Countries to be fired, it is actually pretty difficult to fire someone.
      - gadders 4y ago
        >> These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs. >> There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day. This we can agree on. ------ Update due to the posting too fast rules ---- If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would. If I offered you $1/night, you probably wouldn't. Hopefully, somewhere between those two points is a number that will get people to work and be profitable for the restaurant owner. I'm not sure why people think supply and demand applies to other goods but not labour.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. There are lots of people for whom logic, and logical consistency, are non-priorities. If they are anti-immigrant* and emotional, assume that they're trying to articulate their emotions - not get an 'A' on their Public Policy 401 term paper, nor favorably impress people with quite different priorities and educational backgrounds from their own. *Of course, their anti-immigrant "beliefs" may learned from demagoguery they've been exposed to, which was a good-enough emotional match for their economic & social pain & insecurity.
losvedir 4y ago
I'm more of an "open borders libertarian" so by all means let everyone come in, but this here is a silly argument. If an immigrant comes, they're either going to get a job, or not get a job. From the point of view of someone who's opposed to more immigration, neither outcome is good. I fail to see a contradiction.
AzzieElbab 4y ago
What if the person you are asking is an immigrant themselves? Would that answer make them reverse-Schrodinger's immigrant? Just trying to improve my Harry Potter game here...

gadders 4y ago

Yes, the lazy mid-wit dismissal used by the upper-middle classes, safe in the knowledge that they would never be replaced. Perhaps in 100,000 additional people a year, there could be groups that do either?

dasz 4y ago

Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general. "Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one. We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population. I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.
- gadders 4y ago
  >> because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay Fixed it for you. There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay > Fixed it for you I like people who assume without knowing like anybody else, but that's not the point. These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) or in the weekend (restaurants work the most when people do not work or are on holiday etc. etc.) So they both want the money and the time. Long story short: they don't want to do the job, which is legit, but can't at the same time complain that there are no jobs IMO. > There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day. If a waiter wants the same salary of a CEO, probably she/he's shooting too high... Or they imagine that restaurants should be for billionaires only, that would shrink the number of available jobs to the bare minimum and skyrocket the skills needed to actually do the job. Schrodinger at work here too. p.s.: in my Country collective negotiation is the norm, one cannot easily pay radically different salaries for the same job. On the flip side once hired it's not as easy as in other Countries to be fired, it is actually pretty difficult to fire someone.
    - gadders 4y ago
      >> These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs. >> There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day. This we can agree on. ------ Update due to the posting too fast rules ---- If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would. If I offered you $1/night, you probably wouldn't. Hopefully, somewhere between those two points is a number that will get people to work and be profitable for the restaurant owner. I'm not sure why people think supply and demand applies to other goods but not labour.
bell-cot 4y ago
> Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. There are lots of people for whom logic, and logical consistency, are non-priorities. If they are anti-immigrant* and emotional, assume that they're trying to articulate their emotions - not get an 'A' on their Public Policy 401 term paper, nor favorably impress people with quite different priorities and educational backgrounds from their own. *Of course, their anti-immigrant "beliefs" may learned from demagoguery they've been exposed to, which was a good-enough emotional match for their economic & social pain & insecurity.

losvedir 4y ago

I'm more of an "open borders libertarian" so by all means let everyone come in, but this here is a silly argument. If an immigrant comes, they're either going to get a job, or not get a job. From the point of view of someone who's opposed to more immigration, neither outcome is good. I fail to see a contradiction.

AzzieElbab 4y ago

What if the person you are asking is an immigrant themselves? Would that answer make them reverse-Schrodinger's immigrant? Just trying to improve my Harry Potter game here...