Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Your Country Needs Them
A joint study (pdf) from Britain's Treasury Department and Home Office comes to the unsurprising conclusion that migrants to the UK are "a boon" to the economy and are fueling that country's economic expansion. The Guardian reports:
Migrants are more skilled and often more reliable and hardworking than British workers, and are fuelling the country's economic growth to the tune of £6bn a year, according to the first official study of their impact published yesterday.
The joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study says that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Polish and other east European workers has had "no discernible" impact on unemployment and has led to only a "modest dampening of wage growth" for British workers at the bottom end of the earnings league.
For those of who have read British journalist Philip Legrain's book Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, this is old news. As my friend Johan Norberg, author of the indispensable In Defense of Global Capitalism, said, Legrain "shows that migration can benefit the migrants, the country they leave and the country they move to."
In 2003, Nick Gillespie spoke with Norberg about In Defense.
Update: The NYT's Freakanomics blog interviews Legrain today.
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"shows that migration can benefit the migrants, the country
they leave and the country they move to."
I am highly skeptical that migration helps the countries people
migrate from -- at least in the short. Eventually, a truly free
market balances things out and all benefit, but not before a period
of further degradation of the source countries' economy.
|10.17.07 @ 2:35PM|#
I am highly skeptical that migration helps the countries
people migrate from -- at least in the short. Eventually, a truly
free market balances things out and all benefit, but not before a
period of further degradation of the source countries'
economy.
I would suspect that emigration is most helpful to the home
country's unemployment problems and overpopulation; problems which
tend to be endemic of poorer countries...
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:39PM|#
unemployment problems and overpopulation
This is just anecdotal but... from what I see (not statistics
available at hand), most of the migrants tend to be the more
educated, who tend to contribute less to over-population (they tend
to have smaller family sizes). What you are left with are the less
competent portion of the population, a la brain drain.
robc|10.17.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Most migrant workers (Mexicans to US, southeast Asians to middle east and europe, at the least) commonly send cash back home to family. That helps the country they leave.
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:44PM|#
send cash back home to family
Sure, but where does this cash end up? Savings and investments?
They probably end up being consumed for everyday living matters.
Plus, even if the money is put into the economy in more productive
forms (e.g., towards manufacturing), the percentage of that money
in the bigger national economies of these countries is probably
small. But, yet again, I am just speculating from personal
experience and general knowledge --no hard data.
|10.17.07 @ 2:46PM|#
What you are left with are the less competent portion of the
population, a la brain drain.
Yeah, but for every competent person who leaves the old sod, all
the lazy slobs who stayed behind move up a slot on the competency
and employability ladder.
It's a win-win!
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:53PM|#
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:54PM|#
send cash back home to family
Sure, but where does this cash end up? Savings and investments?
They probably end up being consumed for everyday living matters.
Plus, even if the money is put into the economy in more productive
forms (e.g., towards manufacturing), the percentage of that money
in the bigger national economies of these countries is probably
small. But, yet again, I am just speculating from personal
experience and general knowledge --no hard data.
iih|10.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Here we go again:
he lazy slobs who stayed behind move up a slot on the
competency and employability ladder
Not really. Because of cronyism and corruption, those left behind
(including the competent who decide to stay put or who return from
the more advanced countries) do not end up "moving up a slot". That
is one of the main reasons migrants decide to migrate and rarely do
they decide to return. The beneficiaries of migrations are the
migrants themselves (though it still comes at the cost of cultural
and sense-of-security concerns), and the host countries, but really
migration rarely helps countries of origin.
TLB|10.17.07 @ 3:04PM|#
1. Legrain got his hat and other things handed to him in
comments
here. If I debated him, he'd last 10 minutes before being
completely discredited.
2. This study is simply prop, and fails to note non-fiscal costs.
They might as well say that selling one of your kidneys is a
financial boon.
Ryo|10.17.07 @ 3:09PM|#
iih, I recommend you read that interview at freakonomics,
Legrain addresses a number of your points.
That is one of the main reasons migrants decide to migrate and rarely do they decide to return.
Legrain actually argues that the opposite is true. In most cases, the immigrant returns to his home country. One of the ironies of American immigration policy is that it makes it risky for a would be migrant workers to return home due to the trouble they'd have re-entering the country come the next harvest. So, they stay put.
|10.17.07 @ 3:14PM|#
iih, The Duh! was for the article. Your incompetent immigrant posting, ;-) was just a coincidence.
|10.17.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Dammit, this flood if immigrants needs to stop! Waves upon waves
of Oregonians are sweeping across California, doing the jobs that
Californian's won't do, and driving down the wages of everyone.
They send their children to our public schools and use our
emergency rooms. This must stop! We need to build a wall between
California and Oregon, and patrol it with soldiers and Rottweilers.
Sure, immigration in moderation is normally acceptable, but we
can't let anymore in until we fix our welfare mess!
p.s. And while we're at it, let's stop that stupid free trade with
Oregon as well.
VA DARE DOUCHEBAGS|10.17.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Your data conflicts with my xenophobia. (puts fingers in ears) I am not a racist!
|10.17.07 @ 5:20PM|#
This study is notable for what it doesn't say. Note the excerpt refers to "eastern European" migrants. It ignores the real problem migrants: Muslims, who have high rates of unemployment, are extremely abusive of public benefits, and are extremely violent compared to other immigrant groups. Of course it wouldn't be PC to note this fact, just as the UK government has prohibited its officials from using the words "Islam" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.
iih|10.17.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Muslims, who have high rates of unemployment, are extremely
abusive of public benefits, and are extremely violent compared to
other immigrant groups.
Yeah... you must be enjoying that Steyn guy's book. Well, here is a
solution to the problem: Prohibit Muslims from migrating to Europe.
Accept all others.
iih|10.17.07 @ 5:47PM|#
iih, The Duh! was for the article. Your incompetent
immigrant posting, ;-) was just a coincidence.
But it was well-timed nonetheless :-)
iih|10.17.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Bob Smith:
What is the history of Muslim immigration to two very important
cases: France and Germany, if I may ask? How much do you know about
it? Now I am talking about post-WWII couple of decades. How come
these two countries have such a large number of Muslim migrants
(mostly are now citizens)? And if they are abusing social welfare
programs, are they any different from their native counterparts or
other migrants from other groups? One last thing, if these Muslim
immigrants migrated legally, do you blame them for their
higher birth rates? Shouldn't we blame the "natives'" lack of
interest in, well, having sex?
iih|10.17.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Ryo: Just noted the addition to Michael's original thread. Will read, sounds interesting. Thanks.
|10.17.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Waves upon waves of Oregonians are sweeping across California, doing the jobs that Californian's won't do, and driving down the wages of everyone.
Brandybuck,
I think the flow is actually going the other way. But I agree with
you on the wall. ;)
|10.17.07 @ 6:51PM|#
Iih, here is the relevant passage from the interview.
Already, migrants born in poor countries and working in rich ones
send home much more - some $200 billion a year officially, perhaps
another $400 billion informally - than the miserly $100 billion
that Western governments give in aid. These remittances are not
wasted on weapons or siphoned off into Swiss bank accounts; they go
straight into the pockets of local people. They pay for food, clean
water, and medicines. They enable children to stay in school, fund
small businesses, and benefit the local economy. What's more, when
migrants return home, they bring with them new skills, new ideas,
and the money to start new businesses that can provide a huge boost
to the local economy. For example, Africa's first Internet cafés
were started by migrants returning from Europe.
How does your personal experience deny the above? For what it's
worth my personal experience is that my Filipina maid is putting
her two daughters through university in Manila. Surely this counts
as investment in improving productivity.
iih|10.17.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Simon:
they go straight into the pockets of local people. They pay for
food, clean water, and medicines. They enable children to stay in
school, fund small businesses, and benefit the local
economy.
The question is,how much of it goes to "food, clean water, and
medicines" and how much to "enable children to stay in school, fund
small businesses"? The first category (food, etc) does some benefit
on a very very small scale, but ends up simply being consumed and
does not end up in a viable economy. Regarding the second category,
what is the % of that as part of the global economy og the country?
But I agree, this $200-400B is more effective then the lousy $100B
that gets wasted otherwise.
|10.18.07 @ 5:13AM|#
I live in the UK, so have first-hand experience of this
report.
It's clear to anyone who thinks that immigration is "good" for the
economy in a financial sense. After all, people who are willing to
live nine-to-a-small-house (as many of my Polish colleagues are)
are far more *financially* efficient than I am. After all, I demand
a home to live in, and they are putting up with much much less.
Consuming less while contributing more tax is a good thing for the
government.
However, after the standard platitudes about "they'll leave when
they've earned some money" from the politicians, these people now
want to stay. Of course, that means they want a house as well as I
- and there are only 40,000 being built each year.
Next year we'll allow another 200,000 immigrants into the country
to keep the prices of labour intensive products low. And they'll
want to stay, and they'll want a higher standard of living
too.
It's sad to see the ignorance of those with insulated lives
assuming that it's good to have immigration. After all, the
elimination of everything that makes a country better than the
source of these immigrants must be a good thing? Right?
People are already voting for the ultra-extreme parties in protest,
but nothing changes. Politicians are convinced that an
ever-expanding population is just the cure for a taxpayer defecit
when they retire. Got to keep the social security system paying
out. The only problem is the very people they expect to pay out for
them are finding the ladder being pulled up in front of them.
Whether it's paying more an more for education, or simply being
unable to afford a home as prices escalate out of their reach,
these changes are increasingly alienating the younger generations
from paying for their feckless baby-boomer parents.
As always, I'm sure there'll be a compromise, but if not, there
will be hell to pay when the younger generations realise they are
paying for things they will not get because the baby-boomers have
simply taken those rights away.
|10.18.07 @ 8:10AM|#
Iih, I don't really understand your answer. Do you still refute
that having people from poor countries working in rich countries
benefit that poor country? I don't follow your argument. (food,
etc) does some benefit on a very very small scale. Apart from
the fact that providing poor people with food seems like quite a
big deal I don't see how this is simply consumed. Greater demand
for food will encourage investment in production of food.
Hugh, I also don't follow your argument. Why is everything that
makes a country better being eliminated? If their arrival is
putting pressure on you then I'm sorry to hear that but there must
be benefits. The fact that these people are working for low wages
is good news for the business employing them, the customers of that
business and the places where they spend their money but you don't
mention this. Demand for housing may increase? Why is this bad? We
can surely build more, no?
May I ask a question generally? I found the arguments of the book
very persuasive and don't see how anyone can deny that globally
easier provision of working visas would not benefit the world as a
whole. Does anyone disagree? I'm sure there are groups who feel
worse off and perhaps some are, though I suspect a very small
minority. But is there anyone there who thinks we would really be
globally worse off by having greater availability of work
visas?
Greg|10.18.07 @ 10:26AM|#
If I debated him, he'd last 10 minutes before being
completely discredited.
I love how you continue to repeat this as if you are William F.
Buckley, yet have yet to demonstrate that you can win an arguement
about IllegalImmigration with some people on a blog.
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Simon:
(delayed because of travel)
Food for local consumption only can not be the basis of any viable
economy. Same for any other consumptive product (e.g., drugs) that
gets consumed by the locals.
provision of working visas
I guess I see why we have a misunderstanding. I was talking about
permanent immigration and highly skilled migrants, who usually end
up settling in the West. Seasonal and low paid migrants on
temporary work visas (1) get low incomes that can not help in
creating viable, non-consumption based economies in their home
countries, and (2) when they return, it is hard to say that working
in a field or at McDonalds has helped these people gain new
expertise in an area that could benefit their home countries.
With that said, on the long run, I think immigration/migration are
good for all, not in the short run -- that was the point of my
original post (at 2:32 pm).
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245