.....and sometimes these waves of industrious immigrants include people who publish economic data, articles etc. and thus increase the human capital of the population as a whole.
Sensible to restrict scope to effects on economy and within that only the effect on GDP.
This article addresses absolute increase in GDP - increase from £100 to £102. What about GDP per capita of population - at the same time this could fall from £1 to £0-98. Is GDP per capita a better measure of benefit to citizens?
Outside scope, but still an ‘economic’ effect, is competition demand for resources adversely affecting citizens e.g. average house price rises from £1000 to £1250.
Agree that it would be good to have results on the GDP/capita basis. For most of the past 30 years immigration was so small as % of population that the difference didn't really matter, but hat has obviously changed with the refugee crisis of 2015.
Yet, I know of no study that looks at the impact of refugees and economic migrants from a GDP/capita perspective.
In any case, I don't think the impact on scarce resources like houses from migrants is that big. After all, a migrant that can afford to buy a house presumably has to have a good job with a decent income first, thus lifting GDP and GDP/capita. the only scarce resource that I can think of where citizens are potentially crowded out by immigrants is government services since asylum seekers typically are not allowed to work and thus require government benefits to survive which obviously reduces the pool of money available for other government services.
Of course, you're not wading into a political minefield when you restrict yourself to the pros and cons as concern the economy only.
That said, Japan has fared pretty well with very little immigration. And I think it wouldn't be crazy to say that low immigration could be a boost to the development of robotics.
As positive as the economic argument for immigration is, the political argument might be a lot more contentuous. The average Joe who in some general terms benefits from more economic growth will still be anti-immigration if it means housing becomes unaffordable, or (and this is *really* a minefield) more foreigners mean more crime.
Well, I think with or without immigration, we are going to find out about automation pretty soon. And I agree with you, Japan is not such a bad place. Even though they don't have a lot of growth, the living standards are quite nice. It's a matter of preference in the end and that is not an economic question. If you are willing to live in an ageing, no-growth society that is a choice you can make (and I say that while being a massive fan of Japan and the Japanese). If you instead want to live in a society that is more dynamic and more growth oriented, then you have to at least be fine with significant skilled immigration, potentially also unskilled immigration. And that is a good choice, too. And I say that while being a massive fan of Australia and Australians... :-)
A good read on this topic is the book How migration really works by the Dutsch scholar Hein de Haas. Excellent book where he debunks 22 myths on migration.
Joachim - this is a very helpful contribution to the debate. Most welcome.
I have to echo the comment that the per-capita view is at least as important as the raw gdp (etc) data.
If we gain 1% of population numbers via immigration, and the immigrants are as productive as the existing pop (eg suppose they are drawn from the same cultural and ethnic pool, with lots of family ties in), then... the existing population don't gain or lose in gdp per head.
They may however gain or lose in other economic areas. Some bad news: More costly housing. More pressure on green spaces. Busier transport networks. More pollution per square mile. Some good news: the country is a bit bigger and stronger, a few fixed costs like defence get shared over more households.
There may also be indirect economic effects from the changed to the age distribution, skills mix, etc etc.
Overall i would not be suprised at the conclusions offered, that for a surge in economic migrants, gdp goes up pro rata (with a 5yr lag) to population, ie gdp per head recovers. Hopefully not just from upward pressure on property prices (i am of the view that way too much of the uk gdp is based on property and financial services).
And... that for refugee migrants the picture is less rosy ... although the picture of c. nil gdp growth in 5yrs, ie a big negative impact on gdp per head, is at the low end of what i would expect. YES speeding up assimilation would help. Although there is the (non-economic) argument that doing so will attract more folk.
I'll follow your lead in leaving the humanitarian, cultural, environmental and other non economic aspects for another time.
Interesting but not very practical. While the 5-year timeframe captures "immediate" impact or lack thereof, it misses the longer-term economic effects and potential of associated demographic trends. To understand labor flows, we have to think over much longer periods of time than 5 years. I think it's a very complicated question to answer, ergo the politicization of the debate. It would be helpful to see an economic study that looks at a broader time period. Anecdotally, it seems that higher immigration countries - Australia, Canada, US - benefit from higher levels of growth than higher emigration countries?
Yes, higher immigration = higher trend growth and fewer recessions. That is an economic fact. And yes, this is a relatively short-term view covering only five years, but then again it is these first coupe of years after an immigration wave that are politically decisive. If you read about the history of US immigration you will find that with every major wave of new immigrants, xenophobia and nationalism increased and there were plenty of efforts to keep these economic refugees out. It started with the Germans and Scandinavian which were different from the English immigrants. then came the Polish and the Irish (Catholics!!!), then came the Chinese (heathens!), then the Mexicans, then the Muslims and now back again to the Mexicans, central Americans and South Americans.
Immigration increases and politicians try to close the borders. But once the immigrants have lived in the country for a generation they are no longer immigrants but patriotic Americans who shout against letting the next wave of immigrants into the country because they are poor economic refugees and don't fit into this society.
Every time you see Donald Trump agitate against immigrants, you might want to remind yourself that his ancestors were poor economic refugees from Germany (named Drumpf). The same goes for every American with Italian, Irish, Polish, etc. heritage. Unless you can trace your ancestry back to a signatory of the Declaration of Independence like Reese Witherspoon, you really have no leg to stand on (just kidding, but only half ;-)
Trump is not agitating against legal immigrants, he is against illegal immigration, but of course, you wanted to mislead people on Trump's immigration position.
Or in 2019, he instated a rule that essentially stopped immigrants from poorer countries to get a Green Card, thus denying these legal immigrants to stay in the country.
.....and sometimes these waves of industrious immigrants include people who publish economic data, articles etc. and thus increase the human capital of the population as a whole.
Sensible to restrict scope to effects on economy and within that only the effect on GDP.
This article addresses absolute increase in GDP - increase from £100 to £102. What about GDP per capita of population - at the same time this could fall from £1 to £0-98. Is GDP per capita a better measure of benefit to citizens?
Outside scope, but still an ‘economic’ effect, is competition demand for resources adversely affecting citizens e.g. average house price rises from £1000 to £1250.
Agree that it would be good to have results on the GDP/capita basis. For most of the past 30 years immigration was so small as % of population that the difference didn't really matter, but hat has obviously changed with the refugee crisis of 2015.
Yet, I know of no study that looks at the impact of refugees and economic migrants from a GDP/capita perspective.
In any case, I don't think the impact on scarce resources like houses from migrants is that big. After all, a migrant that can afford to buy a house presumably has to have a good job with a decent income first, thus lifting GDP and GDP/capita. the only scarce resource that I can think of where citizens are potentially crowded out by immigrants is government services since asylum seekers typically are not allowed to work and thus require government benefits to survive which obviously reduces the pool of money available for other government services.
very well-argued!
Of course, you're not wading into a political minefield when you restrict yourself to the pros and cons as concern the economy only.
That said, Japan has fared pretty well with very little immigration. And I think it wouldn't be crazy to say that low immigration could be a boost to the development of robotics.
As positive as the economic argument for immigration is, the political argument might be a lot more contentuous. The average Joe who in some general terms benefits from more economic growth will still be anti-immigration if it means housing becomes unaffordable, or (and this is *really* a minefield) more foreigners mean more crime.
Well, I think with or without immigration, we are going to find out about automation pretty soon. And I agree with you, Japan is not such a bad place. Even though they don't have a lot of growth, the living standards are quite nice. It's a matter of preference in the end and that is not an economic question. If you are willing to live in an ageing, no-growth society that is a choice you can make (and I say that while being a massive fan of Japan and the Japanese). If you instead want to live in a society that is more dynamic and more growth oriented, then you have to at least be fine with significant skilled immigration, potentially also unskilled immigration. And that is a good choice, too. And I say that while being a massive fan of Australia and Australians... :-)
can't argue with that. (Paris is my favorite city).
A good read on this topic is the book How migration really works by the Dutsch scholar Hein de Haas. Excellent book where he debunks 22 myths on migration.
Joachim - this is a very helpful contribution to the debate. Most welcome.
I have to echo the comment that the per-capita view is at least as important as the raw gdp (etc) data.
If we gain 1% of population numbers via immigration, and the immigrants are as productive as the existing pop (eg suppose they are drawn from the same cultural and ethnic pool, with lots of family ties in), then... the existing population don't gain or lose in gdp per head.
They may however gain or lose in other economic areas. Some bad news: More costly housing. More pressure on green spaces. Busier transport networks. More pollution per square mile. Some good news: the country is a bit bigger and stronger, a few fixed costs like defence get shared over more households.
There may also be indirect economic effects from the changed to the age distribution, skills mix, etc etc.
Overall i would not be suprised at the conclusions offered, that for a surge in economic migrants, gdp goes up pro rata (with a 5yr lag) to population, ie gdp per head recovers. Hopefully not just from upward pressure on property prices (i am of the view that way too much of the uk gdp is based on property and financial services).
And... that for refugee migrants the picture is less rosy ... although the picture of c. nil gdp growth in 5yrs, ie a big negative impact on gdp per head, is at the low end of what i would expect. YES speeding up assimilation would help. Although there is the (non-economic) argument that doing so will attract more folk.
I'll follow your lead in leaving the humanitarian, cultural, environmental and other non economic aspects for another time.
Interesting but not very practical. While the 5-year timeframe captures "immediate" impact or lack thereof, it misses the longer-term economic effects and potential of associated demographic trends. To understand labor flows, we have to think over much longer periods of time than 5 years. I think it's a very complicated question to answer, ergo the politicization of the debate. It would be helpful to see an economic study that looks at a broader time period. Anecdotally, it seems that higher immigration countries - Australia, Canada, US - benefit from higher levels of growth than higher emigration countries?
Yes, higher immigration = higher trend growth and fewer recessions. That is an economic fact. And yes, this is a relatively short-term view covering only five years, but then again it is these first coupe of years after an immigration wave that are politically decisive. If you read about the history of US immigration you will find that with every major wave of new immigrants, xenophobia and nationalism increased and there were plenty of efforts to keep these economic refugees out. It started with the Germans and Scandinavian which were different from the English immigrants. then came the Polish and the Irish (Catholics!!!), then came the Chinese (heathens!), then the Mexicans, then the Muslims and now back again to the Mexicans, central Americans and South Americans.
Immigration increases and politicians try to close the borders. But once the immigrants have lived in the country for a generation they are no longer immigrants but patriotic Americans who shout against letting the next wave of immigrants into the country because they are poor economic refugees and don't fit into this society.
Every time you see Donald Trump agitate against immigrants, you might want to remind yourself that his ancestors were poor economic refugees from Germany (named Drumpf). The same goes for every American with Italian, Irish, Polish, etc. heritage. Unless you can trace your ancestry back to a signatory of the Declaration of Independence like Reese Witherspoon, you really have no leg to stand on (just kidding, but only half ;-)
Trump is not agitating against legal immigrants, he is against illegal immigration, but of course, you wanted to mislead people on Trump's immigration position.
And this is why he introduced the muslim ban which prevented legal entries from muslim-majority countries as one of his first acts in office in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
Or in 2018, he denied the legal right to an asylum claim to any immigrant coming from Mexico and entering the US outside an official port. A rule that had to be stayed by the courts and was then repealed by the Biden administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Restrictions_on_asylum
Or in 2019, he instated a rule that essentially stopped immigrants from poorer countries to get a Green Card, thus denying these legal immigrants to stay in the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#%22Public_charge%22_restrictions_on_awarding_Green_cards