Hacker News Reader

Comment by ardit33 | Hacker News Reader

The talk was that this was part of the reason that Merkel was so open in taking in so many refugees back in 2015, and have a 'open door' policy. It was both a 'calculated economic decision', and a humanitarian one.

Unfortunately it backfired as it encouraged too many economic immigrants to come with boats and undertake dangerous trips risking their lives, only to eventually get turned down in their lengthy asylum process. And she is risking her position/government as her people got fed up on the influx. It also is risking the EU stability itself, with Austria and Italy taking a hard right and turning into immigrant hostile countries, and helping putting eurosceptic parties in power.

View on HN

The problem is that you can't have a liesure class of healthcare consuming old people without an underclass of young working age people toiling for high taxes. Eventually you have an even worse social issue. Further, people probably don't realize they are voting to close the border to their sole source of future dependency. A vicious cycle. The other problem is there is a huge gap in the quality of immigrants, some stay dependent where others drive the economy like no native can. Complicated issue all around.

There is always the option of reversing the decline of fertility in Western countries.

But as Peter Zeihan says, it takes 20 years to make a 20 year old. So the policies to support family formation need to be in place asap.

Fertility is declining globally it’s not a western thing. The only way to realistically improve fertility rates is to recess women’s rights back to the 1950s.

Instead we should focus on improving quality of life for all through more efficient and automated production methods. The end goal is to increase productivity per hour such that we don’t need as many young people to support the older population.

sure you can. the US government can lower taxes and spend more by simply selling more debt, while at the same time increasing the size and productivity of the overall economy by creating more Googles and Facebooks. Other countries however do not have this luxury. They don't have a large influx of high-IQ talent nor the ability to raise money so cheaply. It used to be very expensive to produce food, and food expenditures used to be a much higher percentage of income than it is now. Now food production is very cheap. Same for electricity.

But also the possibility of rationing healthcare is a politically untenable issue

Quality of immigrants matter. I do not care for country of origin, but importing people who are from poorer backgrounds back home is not going to make it any better in one generation. I am not saying poor people should not allowed, but most of the immigrants should be ably educated enough to operate in the complex economic infrastructure of advanced economies.

The first generation of migrants will mostly fail to get jobs[1] and become a burden on the welfare state.

1) https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...

That’s not true in Canada. Most immigrants I know do pretty well. And the reason is that Canada actually actively tries to integrate and assimilate. To the point that you get paid a small amount to attend language classes in QC, and other provinces have other programs.

Technology will solve the problem - immigration just kicks the can down the road.

If you import a large amount of immigrants they will have less hereditary wealth than the same amount of native Germans.

This increases state dependence when these immigrants become old themselves and enhances the viscous cyle

I doubt that it was a calculated economic decision because refugees have a negative net lifetime contribution to the state's coffers. If it was an economic decision then Germany would have relaxed its immigration laws to attract more highly skilled immigrants, who have a net positive contribution. Insiders claim that Merkel was actually not open to taking in so many refugees, but that her decision was made because she was afraid of the negative press that would result from German border guards physically stopping hundreds of thousands of refugees from crossing the German border. When hundreds of thousands of people are coming, the only way to stop them is by erecting a fence and using the military. This will result in violence because people who have traveled halfway around the world and sold all their belongings will not be happy about that, and the logistics of keeping hundreds of thousands of people hydrated, fed, and warm at the border would be impossible. There is simply no way that Germany would have executed such a policy, even if somebody other than Merkel had been the chancellor. In this sense it was not a German decision to let in so many refugees; the decision was made by the refugees. Merkel could have told the German population that she didn't want to let in that many refugees but that she was practically powerless to stop it, but imagine the storm that would have caused. She decided to do the opposite.

Then Merkel should really have gone for some "point based system" similar to Canada or Australia and pursue it aggressively, no? Why open floodgates to everyone in Middle east / North Africa?

Coming from a third world country, I can assure you - a lot of smart, talented folks who would jump at the opportunity to migrate to Germany legally. It will benefit them (better living standard, more money) and benefit Germany (more educated workers). Only loser would be those third world countries who fail to invest in their people for whatever reasons.

There is no proof either way, but there would have been far easier ways if you wanted to increase immigration to drive up your economy. Personally, I believe the economic reasons were promoted after the fact to win over those people who didn’t care about the humanitarian reasons

It hasn’t backfired, the German economy has never been stronger and Merkel has been an incredibly successful chancellor.

The migrant boat trips would have happened regardless of policy, the economic incentives for being in a wealthy country are always there.

I agree with her policy, but it’s clearly far too early to come up with any causations between economic growth and her immigration policy. Many of the new arrivals haven’t even taken up their first proper job

Reply on news.ycombinator.com