tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post5746948736187973701..comments2023-10-29T08:06:00.610+00:00Comments on The Political Economist: Immigration; an economic argumentVuk Vukovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01878567452492217960noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-33127328330307462942013-06-28T10:23:36.369+01:002013-06-28T10:23:36.369+01:00I agree with Kyle. High levels of immigration do t...I agree with Kyle. High levels of immigration do tend to have short-term costs, even though in the long term the benefits are undisputed. But the issue at hand is assimilation of immigrants..John Turpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03146853575797586917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-24271423446190000612013-06-11T11:19:59.560+01:002013-06-11T11:19:59.560+01:00They certainly do depress the wages, this is what ...They certainly do depress the wages, this is what the paper claims, and this is what causes a net benefit to owners of factors of production in importing countries. From a purely economic perspective, measuring the entire net benefit area, the gains are significant. I do agree there are short-run social losses, particularly if low-skilled immigrants tend to cluster in areas where they only communicate one with another. We can try to think why this is so, and where are the incentives to behave in such a way coming from. Vuk Vukovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01878567452492217960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-40133910255126227532013-06-11T11:07:06.908+01:002013-06-11T11:07:06.908+01:00Yes the gain areas are equated but that doesn'...Yes the gain areas are equated but that doesn't mean that the owners of factors loose out. Think in terms of newly gained skills. Vuk Vukovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01878567452492217960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-45573027924024863152013-06-10T22:21:59.766+01:002013-06-10T22:21:59.766+01:00I think there are ideological blinders on this sub...I think there are ideological blinders on this subject on both sides. It has long been known that there are economic advantages to immigrants but these tend to be long term advantages while the short term disadvantages are very real. <br /><br />I happen to live in a city which currently and for many years has been the recipient of massive immigration. Believe me it does cause problems. Social problems, crime problems. Use of social services, etc. In the long term yes there is a benefit if the workers assiminlate and move up into the middle class and pay more taxes. <br /><br />If, however they were to remain a permenant underclass living in shanty towns then the advantages would not accrue. <br /><br />I also blush at the "evidence" I see which states that cheap immigrant labor does not hold down local wages. I suppose that immigrants are magical beings able to put aside the laws of supply and demand. These studies are not valuable. They assume that the economic growth of a region is dependent upon the immigrants rather than the reality which is the opposite, the immigrants are drawn to the areas with high growth, and yes they do depress the wages from what they would otherwise be.<br /><br />Having said all of this I am not anti-immigrant. But I am anti-making ideological arguments parading as economics.KyleNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766641765942339253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-58349298146343869492013-06-10T13:26:02.590+01:002013-06-10T13:26:02.590+01:00I really don't see any of the gains from migra...I really don't see any of the gains from migration apart from the migrants themselves. The owners of factors play a zero-sum game, don't they? (if e=b)<br />It would be wrong to conclude that more open borders would increase world output. Or am I missing something? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-29407174757457120672013-06-08T21:15:43.755+01:002013-06-08T21:15:43.755+01:00Great paper, thanks for the recommendation. It rea...Great paper, thanks for the recommendation. It really does look like a typical international economics approach. As it shouldMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14413273098082958690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-80499039228265002272013-06-07T17:09:10.817+01:002013-06-07T17:09:10.817+01:00At the graph above the area "c" is the t...At the graph above the area "c" is the total gain to low-income country non-migrants. However, the losses to owners of factors of production are "b+c", implying that the "brain drain" country experiences a net welfare loss. <br />However, in the end the labour exporter country does benefit through remittances being sent back home, and even lower domestic unemployment (and hence lower pressure on the government budget). The example is Poland and its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_migration_to_the_United_Kingdom" rel="nofollow">over 500,000 workers</a> which have emigrated to Britain after 2004. <br /><br />One can however make the same argument vice versa. If the labour exporter country benefits in a number of ways, then the labour importer country must lose out. However, just as in trade this is not a zero sum game. <br /><br /> Vuk Vukovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01878567452492217960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448927642739850334.post-66598183790583830992013-06-07T13:07:45.864+01:002013-06-07T13:07:45.864+01:00Your analysis is focused entirely on the benefits ...Your analysis is focused entirely on the benefits to the countries importing labour (for that is what immigration is, economically). What are the losses for the countries exporting labour, and are there any offsetting gains? After all, they don't get paid for their exports (unless the labour they export is slaves, of course). Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.com