3 ms·
A country's "number of people" isn't an independant parameter that you can just slide down so that your GDP/person increases. If you reduce the "number of peop
by saeranv 3y ago
A country's "number of people" isn't an independant parameter that you can just slide down so that your GDP/person increases.
If you reduce the "number of people" (i.e. by reducing immigration) you are typically reduce your GDP at a much higher rate, and thus will have a lower GDP/person overall. Your eating into your economy's ability to support the division of labour, specialization and other efficiencies that can only emerge at a large scale. Intuitively, think of it this way, do you think a village of 10 people, or a city of 2 million people will produce more GDP per capita?
Going back to the example of immigration, you're basically reducing a stream of young, educated workers who are consistently net creators of jobs, especially in Western countries with a very high ratio of aging senior citizens (Boomers) to young workers.
- fallingknife 3y ago> young, educated workers who are consistently net creators of jobs Yes. If that's the kind of immigrants you're bringing in. But most often I hear this argument used by people who want to justify bringing in a very different type.
- piva00 3y agoThe other type of immigrant that you seem to have qualms with is also a pretty damn important part of a developed country's economy. Do you think the average well-educated Brit is going to the fields to pick strawberries? Or going to move manure around a pig farm? Those jobs need people as well, and the local population has a dwindling number of people willing to perform them. Migrant labour for jobs in construction, farming and others not requiring highly educated people freed up British labour to become more highly specialised. It sucked for Brits trying to live off this labour as immigrants naturally pushed salaries down (no prejudice against that, I'm an immigrant myself and do understand the motivation of accepting lower salaries for better living conditions), on the other hand it freed natives to pursue higher paying jobs. It's a trade-off for society, with pros and cons, very unfortunate cons that affect the lower strata of society but that allowed others to develop technologies. If you don't like the "very different type" of immigrants then you gotta accept that a lot of jobs that are fundamental to society will have shortages, push prices of basic needs up, etc. because just a few people in a developed economy are looking forward to go work in the fields, or in a pig farm, or building houses.
- fallingknife 3y agoI would be willing to take that trade off if income equality weren't at all time highs. Now is not the time to drive down wages at the low end.