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.
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.
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.
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.