Hacker News Reader

Comment by pseudo0 | Hacker News Reader

This take is completely ludicrous. If anything, first-world countries have a problem with an oversupply of labor, as demonstrated by stagnant real wages and weak labor force participation rates. Automation will only amplify this trend.

Also, Denmark has studied this issue extensively and found that "non-Western" immigration actually imposes additional burdens on the state, costing over $10k per year per migrant. Having a young population that doesn't work is even worse than having an inverted population pyramid, and that's without getting into the qualitative damage to social cohesion and trust caused by mass migration.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20211015/denmark-says-non-western-im... https://archive.fo/DU17J

View on HN

Unfortunately, I can not read the paper but according to the article, the study you are citing reviews the cost of immigration, not the cost of not-immigration. (10k/year for the opportunity to move a body through your education system sounds like a pretty good deal though in this context)

> an oversupply of labor, as demonstrated by stagnant real wages and weak labor force participation rates

How do weak labor force participation rates indicate an oversupply in labor?

Most non-Western migrants are male, 18-30, have no knowledge of Danish and minimal education. Women and children generally wait around in UN refugee camps rather than take a long and dangerous trip to Europe. You aren't getting children, you are getting adults who will need years of remedial education to function at a high school level.

> How do weak labor force participation rates indicate an oversupply in labor?

It means people either can't find work, or the work available is so unattractive that it is preferable not to work. In a tight labor market employers will offer better pay, flexibility, hire less desirable workers, etc.

OECD stats linked below, for ages 24-64 it's under 80% for OECD countries on average. And that includes part-time and underemployed workers.

https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-force-participation-rate.ht...

> Women and children generally wait around in UN refugee camps

Reports from the Open Society Foundations show that instead of finding protection and relief in Europe, refugee women and children have often been trapped in makeshift camps that lack adequate food, sanitation, water, or safety. These camps sometimes resemble prisons, and the inhabitants, especially women, live in fear of sexual violence, smuggling, and trafficking. Legal and medical access is also a significant issue for them.

According to USA for UNHCR, 40% of individuals arriving in Europe by sea in 2019 were women and children. In 2022, over 159,000 people risked their lives trying to reach Europe by sea, with more than 2,400 reported dead or missing.

> It means people either can't find work, or the work available is so unattractive that it is preferable not to work.

I disagree with your interpretation, but let's not also get into that.

> Reports from the Open Society Foundations

Sorry, billionaire advocacy organizations aren't credible sources on the issues they are trying to influence.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeke...

73% male, 83% under 35 at the peak of the migration crisis. I think my characterization was pretty fair.

> According to USA for UNHCR, 40% of individuals arriving in Europe by sea in 2019 were women and children. In 2022, over 159,000 people risked their lives trying to reach Europe by sea, with more than 2,400 reported dead or missing.

That number should be 0. Guess how we can make it 0? Eliminate pull factors that incentivize migrants and allow NGOs to aid and abet human trafficking. Australia had a similar issue with migrants arriving via ship, but through effective policy they have virtually eliminated both arrivals and deaths.

You are now conflating your earlier claims about immigration with statistics of asylum seekers. This might not be an important distinction to you but it is to me, and also an important signal, when I am having a discussion that requires a lot of good faith to begin with.

You will notice (in sofar you are willing to do so) that I was at not debating your claims about the prevalence of males among asylum seekers. That is because I do not disagree. I just don't think it's terribly important. I was just irritated by your characterisation of life in migration camps.

The earlier assessment still applies. Short sightedness aside, I fail to see how anyone can confuse immigration for not being the lesser of two issues.

I just responded to how you originally framed the situation:

> I understand that immigration of unskilled people is a little off from the "skilled immigration" pipe dream and less convenient, but are people really that confused about the slightly longer term and exponentially scarier cost of no immigration?

In the case of Germany (and Europe more broadly) the unskilled migrants typically arrive as asylum seekers. So when we look at the data and the facts on the ground for how unskilled migrants integrate into society, and if they make a positive economic contribution or not, the population being studied will largely be asylum seekers from MENA countries.

So far it has been a bit of a disaster. Sweden has done a 180 on immigration policy, Denmark has tightened its rules, Merkel tarnished her legacy with her complete mishandling of the migration crisis, etc.

  > Reports from the Open Society Foundations show that instead of finding protection and relief in Europe, refugee women and children have often been trapped in makeshift camps that lack adequate food, sanitation, water, or safety. These camps sometimes resemble prisons

Prisons? Are European refugee camps as bad as prisons, really?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com