I wonder why people here praise free competition on a global market as a primary value when they talk about their products and services, but support competition limiting when it comes to the labor market in their own country.
There are a lot of people that are fine with protectionism, but think it should only apply to the people like them. They think that those lower down on the ladder need to find new professions, even if they're in their 50's.
Dean Baker:
> Unfortunately, almost none of the people who pronounce themselves devotees of free trade actually do consistently advocate free trade policies. Rather they push selective protectionist policies, that have the effect of redistributing income to people like them, and call them "free trade."
...
> In the United States, the "free traders" in most cases also support the protectionist restrictions which severely limit the ability of foreign trained doctors and dentists and other high-end professionals from working in the United States. As a result of these protectionist measures doctors in the United States earn twice as much as their counterparts in other wealthy countries, costing us around $100 billion a year in higher health care costs.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-free-traders-do-not...
Everyone wants regulation for "others", free market for themselves.
I also don't believe in totally free markets. A flat 10% import terrif on ALL goods and services promotes home grown capital intensive industry where appropriate. Sparking long term growth, while allowing counties to import and export goods where appropriate.
See. This is the problem. Is it fair to buy a Toyota because it's cheaper than a Cadillac? You either accept globalization or you don't. Globalization brings nice and bad things. You can't just have your cake and eat it to. Doing that will result in inefficiencies that in the long term will kill your internal economy. Imagine the USA didn't have access to outsourcing. Industries would have collapsed instead of bringing the top level jobs the US citizen enjoys now.
Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.
So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination?
Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
While the indicted in this article did visa fraud, the majority of migrant tech workers are brought totally above board although at significantly lower wages.
It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
?! By this argument it's unfair that Indian workers get paid more in the US than they do in India, as this is unfair to people who do the job in India for less?
If the work is essentially the same in all locations, it's unfair that the wages aren't the same everywhere. Certainly, the work may not be the same everywhere, and not all workers are providing the same level of work etc. If the worker in India provides the same value to the company as the worker in the US, how is it fair that they are paid differently?
There's also a massive difference in cost of living, and maybe it's fair to pay someone more because the business chooses to hold offices in an expensive place; OTOH, maybe it's more fair to pay everyone the same, and close offices in HCOL areas because you can't attract employees at a fair wage.
You're never going to get equal pay for equal work on a global scale.
Sure, but does that mean unequal pay is fair? And if it's unfair, isn't it unfair to both the worker who is paid less, and the worker who is paid more? If the system becomes more fair, workers who were paid more will see a wage decrease, but won't typically be excited to see more fairness.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you consider to be fair?
It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can.
In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty.
A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.
That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place?
It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me.
I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.
If the tax system is so broken that the poorer are paying for the richer's protection, then fix the tax system so that the rich person pays the "correct/fair" amount. For example, remove most of the deductions and other rules and replace it with a simple flat tax.
Anyways, why are you saying "rich people"? Ordinary people own these companies and purchase from these companies. They benefit.
This isn't about tax rates, it's about a social contract, a small few are allowed to capture a significant % of the economic output of a country, to reap the benefits of the legal and military power of that country. As part of that, they need to share, and they're sharing increasingly less. They think it their "skill" rather than their lucky upbringing, their fortunate birthplace.
There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument. They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
Of course it's about economics as it deals with policy and impacts on people. Simple arguments are better.
Not using economics is a cop-out from using rigorous quantitative analysis. It's interesting that on say climate change HN will be all like we should follow the science, yet economics is the science relevant to our discussion.
> There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
True, so what? More money is still better. GDP per capita is a good measure of peoples' living standards.
An interesting read about "The Economics of Happiness" is https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke201... by Ben S. Bernanke, former chair of the Federal Reserve (the part starting from "As you might guess, when thinking about the sources of psychological well-being" is most relevant).
https://www.gapminder.org/news/hdi-surprisingly-similar-to-g...
> As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument.
The stats don't back your stance. "Compare that to the middle class, which has a median value of a mere $14,000 a household."
Also, bond yields (and bank interest) go up when stock yields go up and (I don't know if CNN counted this or not) people invest in retirement funds which invest in stock. And insurance companies also invest their customers' money.
(http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/18/investing/stock-market-inves... )
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/03/retail-investors-hold-38-of...
"A surprising fact revealed in the report is that retail investors have invested $9.8 trillion in the U.S. equities, or 38 percent of the total $25.8 trillion corporate equity holdings. Additionally, $812 billion hedge fund assets belong to US retail investors. To put in context hedge funds have total assets under management of approximately $2 trillion. This would mean that approximately 40% of hedge fund assets come from retail investors in the US, the remainder comes from foreign investors and institutions."
> They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Income_Share_of_Top_... here, rejoice that the top 1%'s share is mostly static
Meanwhile,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N it's increased by 7.3% from 2012-2015
Interestingly, you said "The stats don't back your stance." while not using any stats yourself and only using weasel words like "It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i...
Graph looks severely different to the one you just posted.
I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
> I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
I don't think money is the only measure of life. Then what do you want to use to measure it?
Being middle class in a third world country and being poor in a poverty-stricken American zip code are different enough that it's not even worth deciding who has it worse.
Your assertion may be wrong; it depends on what is "poor" in a poverty-stricken zipcode.
The median per capita income in India is 616$. PPP adjusted that is 2351$.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... shows people at the 6.48th percentile in the United States earn $2500.
I think you just disagreed with the concept of globalization. Granted that human resources are more complex than other resources. However, judging by your use of term "unfair pricing" on human, you seem to make no distinction between them in this discussion.
H1B is to get workers without loans from places where diploma have been paid often by public taxes.
Without loans you are more competitive than a worker having to reimburse them.
H1BrainDrain also have a power of captation of publicly founded research that can be patented. (That's why young PhD are so interesting)
It also undermines the competitivity of countries which miss their engineer and have to pay twice the knowledge they founded.
It also ostensibly discourage the workers from unionizing since they have no way of controlling a pool of workers that can leverage the offer.
On the macroscopic level H1B is possible because there is a distortion of competition on the job market.
H1B is heavily biasing the capacity of negotiation on the work market in favour of the companies which uses them.
A market in which you can not win and must play is not a fair game.
I didn't get this point. Could you elaborate?
When you have the person actually having the bleeding edge knowledge, you can fund him or her to end the work and either publish it (prior act) or develop a usable result that can be patented.
But most of the effort, especially in countries with public education, has been supported by the taxes of the locals.
It is not USA the problem here. Europe and other place with public education are a bunch of bullied that are masochistic and love to be stolen.
When a company claims that it will only steal from foreign entities for your national interest, and never you because you are a special snowflake, it tend to lie.
A pathological thief will steal everyone as long as he is not stopped.
UK's unemployment levels are at a record low - is that the effect "this" (sic) has had on employment levels? Or are you referring to wages?
Apart from the other studies that have been cited in other responses, you have the LSE study on wages: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/05/11/immigration-from-th...
If you have any data to back up your claims, please produce it, because I can't find any for the life of me.
There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=bRjX9W3EjZQC&pg=PA3&dq=Inte...
Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates. Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry. Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Wait, what? Who said "let's look at how last week progressed"? "record low" is precisely what it means: Record. It's the lowest since the 70s! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-...
You blame unemployment on immigration, yet there's barely no unemployment. At all.
> There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Of course. Employment is at a record low, yet "it's just what happened". Are you trolling me?
> Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example. > (link)
I've read a few pages, thanks for the link. What's your conclusion? Or did you just Google a few keywords and thought this study matched? Because I don't think this says what you think it says.
Even the f* title of the section is "Has the crisis reversed the progress made by migrants over the past decade?". And goes in to analyse the employment rate differences between foreign-born and local workers.
Even the graphs per country show that where unemployment grew (Spain, Ireland are very clear) it did for both, affecting migrants more than locals. In some occurrences foreign-born employment rates are higher than local rates, i.e. Hungary - hardly qualifies as a country taking loads of migrants, see page 90.
There's a US graph included (no FoM) and it has very similar trends as the rest of the stronger European countries. Dip during recession and recovery for both demographics.
But hey - what was the topic we were talking about? Oh yeah, how immigrants stole your bread. Well, try again with the evidence because the one you provided doesn't even talk about the same topic.
> Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates.
I guess you would've showed me if there was any hint of support to your theories.
> Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry.
Hahaha. I love how you suck at moving goal poses. Again, please show me the evidence.
> Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Well, this is the most ironic thing that happened to me in decades. Do I have now to produce evidence for your false claims? Do I have to do your work now?
I'm an immigrant, of course I have to do your work. How else, right?
I did my research and of course I'm unconsciously biased, but trying to be honest with myself I can't find evidence of migration having caused any negative effect on employment rates or wages on any European country, especially in the EU which is my area of interest.
You must be trolling but I'll say it once again, I know the general state of western economies. I understand that we are NOW in a period of low unemployment. I'm talking about the effect that immigration to certain western countries (half of OECD countries) had on employment levels, which you can verify in the study above whether you want to or not.
And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
One of your co-defenders on here also pointed out another OECD study which says:
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
Are you kidding me mate? I have shown you data for +30 years!
> And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Even though the crisis accentuated migration towards the strongest economies! Why aren't you going further than scratching the surface? I guess because it doesn't fit your narrative.
This is like discussing against a wall. You keep ignoring the evidence and then calling me a troll.
> Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
1) That's not what employment levels mean.
2) The nationals / foreign-born ratio is set to change, but as long as unemployment is low that's irrelevant.
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
> which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
I'll read more about that study, thanks. Yet again, that's not what the LSE study says; it'll be interesting to find the differences and how big is that impact.
Yet again, you paint that as undesirable, when it actually ends up growing the economy and getting everyone back to employment - arguably with better skillset. It's pure competition.
In other terms, if I let you sell your stuff in my country, why can't I sell my labour in yours? As long as we play with the same ruleset it's fair.
From Oxford University: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O-level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
> an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
A period of 10 years is a quarter of a person's working lifetime and is, at a personal level, not short term. Being in a European country I should point out too that the rate of large-scale immigration events happen more frequently than 10 years, and so some industries now remain in a constant state of upheaval in terms of indigenous employment.
I was in an industry that saw an almost overnight shift in indigenous employment, and worker's rights, upon migrations from Brazil, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It's only now, 10 years later, that it's becoming viable as a career prospect again because net emigration has increased. Of course, we had to put up with massive unemployment for under 30's in the meantime, and all of the social ramifications of this.
But yes, it's a small effect and is just propaganda. 30-40% of people under 30 just stayed unemployed long-term for fun.
When an immigrant moves into a country he contributes plenty to the local economy. He needs a haircut, so he goes to the local hairdresser. He needs groceries, so he goes to the local shop. He pays rent, buys a car, furniture, pays taxes, schools, etc etc. This helps a lot of people stay employed.
Economic crises happen. Industries - like paper and many others - simply become obsolete and some are going to die. If you are trivially replaced, or only qualified to work on a dying industry you're in for a tough time, and no amount of immigrant bans or protectionist policies is going to help you.
Check out the demographic increases in western European countries. Ireland's population has increased 50% in 10-15 years and a majority of it is accounted for by immigration from poorer countries within the Schengen.
Now the disparity in wealth between even poor and wealthy European countries isn't anything like the disparity between countries at a global level, but you reckon that anybody should be able to move to the US to work.
Hence why unemployment is going back to pre-crisis levels in Ireland, right?: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate
This is like your third comment bashing Freedom of Movement inside the EU without single proof to back it up. I'd like to let you know I have downvoted those three comments of yours for being not only wrong, but for trying to spread false information. If you support that it's not false, please produce the evidence. I am open minded about the topic.
> Now the disparity in wealth between even poor and wealthy European countries isn't anything like the disparity between countries at a global level, but you reckon that anybody should be able to move to the US to work.
The wealth gap between poor and wealthy EU countries is closing down thanks to the Single Market. That's the idea behind it, get together countries with wealth disparity and help the poorer become stronger, which in turn helps the rest by adding more wealthy buyers to your market. It's a win-win and it has worked wonders.
You don't need to keep saying variations of "western economies are improving". I know what's going on in the world.
> The wealth gap between poor and wealthy EU countries is closing down thanks to the Single Market. That's the idea behind it, get together countries with wealth disparity and help the poorer become stronger, which in turn helps the rest by adding more wealthy buyers to your market. It's a win-win and it has worked wonders.
More specifically it's to do with EU membership, and stimulus packages arising from membership. It's not solely related to trading benefits within the single market, and in fact much of the improvements that have taken place in poorer EU countries are due to exports to non-EU countries (Russia/Ukraine etc), i.e. completely unrelated to the single market. But anyway, how is stimulus meant to work at a global level (bear in mind though that this conversation only started because somebody said anybody should be able to work in the US without restriction)
No, I keep telling you unemployment is going down on EU countries. I won't fall for your trick - I'm not talking about the economy (so you can't talk about "economy is good only for big companies that employ migrants" or some other conspiracy theory).
Unemployment. Is. Going. Down. "Despite" (or partly thanks to). Migration.
> More specifically it's to do with EU membership, and stimulus packages arising from membership.
Stimulus packages that come from wealth created by having access to a bigger workforce and a richer market. Yes, I know how the EU works.
Do you think rich countries don't benefit of the EU? I know it's a complex topic that requires an active interest and probable some research, so let's do this: Sit back and watch how the UK tries to cling on to Single Market's membership. Even UKIP is already asking for it. UKIP, the anti-immigration party. Yep.
> It's not solely related to trading benefits within the single market, and in fact much of the improvements that have taken place in poorer EU countries are due to exports to non-EU countries (Russia/Ukraine etc), i.e. completely unrelated to the single market.
Yeah, Romania definitely started improving their economy when they started trading with Russian and Ukraine. Same for Poland and the Baltics, too. Or maybe we should ask Czechia and Slovakia?
The Single Market is not just a free trade agreement. I would recommend you to read up on how it works as it is a complex topic.
> But anyway, how is stimulus meant to work at a global level (bear in mind though that this conversation only started because somebody said anybody should be able to work in the US without restriction)
Now I've got a surprise for you: I don't think the US should do FoM with the world. It might make sense for them to start with Canada and maybe the UK in about 10 years, when we see how Brexit is panning out. Then in 15-20 they can look at the EU and analyse if it would make sense to extend it to the EU too.
Immigration is good, but you have to account for how fast can you scale up your infrastructures and services. Opening up FoM between US and EU could be quite impactful for either. US culture is very attractive for EU citizens and there's a lot of love for places like California or New York due to movies, etc. None of this cities would be able to take a couple of million new inhabitants in 12 months.
But my opinion on US FoM is based on weak research. Maybe a serious study shows there's less desire to move than I think. I would personally don't move due to the healthcare mess the US is - but that might mean US citizens from depressed areas might prefer to rely on Canadian or European healthcare instead.
With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say).
These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?
I called you out on your misinformation about FoM, that's all. I'm pretty sure we agree on the US topic :)
> With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say).
Again, you're trying to avoid looking at the numbers. Unemployment is in good numbers and good trends. "The economy" goes well, too - but one thing is not always the other.
> These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again.
So that's your issue? the nationality of the workers you see?
If unemployment is almost only structural (very low %) - the nationality of those on employment is hardly relevant. Now if you had a 10% and all of them were locals, something must be wrong. That's not the case though.
> I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?
I usually don't ask the nationality of random people :) and I work in a very international industry, so my views might be very skewed.
Anyway, yes, I must agree that unfortunately social welfare programs and now something like a basic income have a natural conflict with large-scale immigration. Like you I'm also worried about massive AI-powered automation of society. Or, rather, about how to distribute the production of goods and services in a highly-automated society. Maybe the end is nigh for capitalism as we know it? That said, cordoning off countries is certainly not the answer. Why not? Most of our problems are global in nature and therefore require a global "Earth-first" and "Earthlings-first" mindset.
I found myself writing a long-winded answer to you, and don't actually have time to finish it...
But basically, within a rich countries' free movement area, a citizens' basic income should be portable (you get it no matter where you live). So wealthy countries presumably shouldn't worry so much about people from within the area coming to their territories.
Likewise, automation will hit all of these regions simultaneously, give or take say five years. Effects should be the same everywhere.
The crucial thing seems to be that if much labor can be automated, then much of the gains of that automation should be redistributed in a way that can provide for people, at the same time in economic terms keeping up the demand for the automated and non-automated goods and services.
Maybe some kind of robot tax combined with a Land Value Tax (not property tax) could provide this citizens' income. (I'd personally add a greenhouse gas emissions tax, or even simple energy tax.) These could all go toward the citizens' income.
You could take that and go to Stuttgart or Sydney, get a job there, and still have your citizens' income arriving monthly in your account.
Hopefully some day, San Francisco, Stuttgart, Seoul and Sydney would have the same citizens' income, by merging their accounts into a supra-national agreement. At this point, collective action on a global level would be far easier.
What's more, though some people post-automation (well, not that it will ever stop, but at least after the next big wave), some people might be untrainable and become a useless class (as the brilliant Yuval Harari worries), many and probably most people will also be able to use AI and robots to generate income in new ways, or to just use basic human skills which robots won't have (like being a good waiter, cleaning things, selling to others, coaching people, and so on).
Certainly these kinds of ideas aren't the most likely that our societies will choose. But we clearly need ideas now...
For immigration from poorer regions, there is a whole other story, set of problems, and also opportunities. Personally, for immigration to Europe, I'd like to see an EU Migrants Bond. Municipalities that accepted refugees would get an amount of money, borrowed from the European Central Bank, EU sovereign bonds due in say thirty years, to spend on education and settlement of the refugees or migrants. Once the migrants became productive members of society, the increase in revenue (from the increase in economic activity that comes along with increase in population) would fund the repayment of the bonds.
If, in the meantime, automation had taken everything over, then that automation itself could become the source for the repayment of EU Migrant Bonds.
In this way, poor areas which needed employment might even compete for refugees and migrants whom they could educate and integrate. At least that's the idea.
OK, way too much, excuse the length... and also the inchoate nature of the ideas.