PDA

View Full Version : Immigration



Sponk
August 28 2012, 07:03:39 AM
Apparently you guys don't understand what's in your best interests (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/27/160110929/immigration-who-the-u-s-lets-in-and-why).

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/08/pm-workvisas/pm-gr-workvisascountries-462.gif

Keorythe
August 28 2012, 07:18:55 AM
IDGI?

NoirAvlaa
August 28 2012, 08:18:17 AM
IDGI?

Here's the article:-


America's economy would be better off if the U.S. admitted more highly skilled workers, James Surowiecki recently argued in the New Yorker. That got us thinking: How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the developed world when it comes to immigration policy?

The short answer: The U.S. mostly lets in family members of people who are already in this country. Other developed countries focus much more on letting in workers.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/08/pm-workvisas/pm-gr-workvisausa-462.gif
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/08/pm-workvisas/pm-gr-workvisascountries-462.gif
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR

A few notes on the data:

The data are for immigrants who are admitted for permanent residence (in the U.S., this corresponds to immigrants who are issued Greencards) or, in the case of some countries, on visas that are renewable indefinitely.

"Open Borders" refers to people who don't need a visa to move from one country to another. A German citizen, for example, is able to relocate to Britain for work without a visa because both countries are in the EU.

According to a spokesperson from the OECD, most people who move from one "Open Border" country to another for work, though a number of Europeans move to the Southern regions permanently to retire.

Me
August 28 2012, 12:43:38 PM
Those graphs don't say much on their own though. Australia is above the US with a high GDP per capita, strong economy etc. But you also have Italy with close enough percentages to Australia and their economy is in the shitter. Then you have countries like Norway and Switzerland with less than the US and great economies. Though the open border category really throws the EU ones off since even though the article says "most people do it for work" that's hardly a quantitative term. Open borders should be ignored entirely or the EU as a whole should be used, that chart is flawed as is. The only countries you can really use are South Korea, Canada, NZ, Australia, Japan, Russia, US. In which case congrats that doesn't give you anything since that is nowhere near an ordered listing of GDP/capita or debt/capita or any useful metric.

Even just comparing US to Russia, Russia has quite a bit more "workers" but I doubt anyone is going to say the Russian economy is something the US should be aspiring for. Well, maybe someone :razor:

Really you can't use this for anything since more skilled worker immigration doesn't automatically mean more GDP. Sure if the US has a skills shortage somewhere then they should increase immigration in that area to make up for it (eg. they need more doctors so they put up incentives for doctors to move there) but as far as I know there isn't a skills shortage anywhere in the US at a scale that immigration would be the best remedy. Quite the opposite in fact since the high unemployment suggests there is more workers in the US than is currently needed.

If anything a higher skilled worker intake into the US would actually create a situation of "they took our jerbs!"

Sacul
August 28 2012, 02:07:12 PM
Surprised the NL number for family is still 57%. We have been limiting that amount since about 2005 now and if you would believe the papers or certain politico's that figure is 0%.

Lallante
August 28 2012, 02:31:04 PM
Immigration with sensible hurdles is brilliant.

Hard caps on immigration are beyond dumb and the current UK government is retarded for supporting them.

Buzzword should be integration.

Cool09
August 28 2012, 05:45:09 PM
In Canada, our economists are saying "we need more workers!" as the baby boomers age. So that explains the focus on importing workers.

It would be interesting to see how countries rank by immigration as a % of total population.

Warpath
August 28 2012, 08:48:10 PM
In Canada, our economists are saying "we need more workers!" as the baby boomers age.


Pretty much what is being said in the UK, Don't think anyone has a problem with controlled immigration? as long as they are only letting in the brightest and best. People who actually contribute to the country rather than leach off of it. Problem with the last government was that it let in all and sundry. Many of whom took the low end jobs that the chavs would normally do, and generally drove down wages across many business sectors. This may be good for the owners of the businesses, but not so much for those that work in said sectors. If the wages are being forced down, it also has a detrimental affect on the spending power of the British consumer. Affecting how much can be spent in our shops and buying services from our companies. Something that isn't exactly helping our economy at the moment..

Jolin
August 28 2012, 08:55:45 PM
In Canada, our economists are saying "we need more workers!" as the baby boomers age.


Pretty much what is being said in the UK, Don't think anyone has a problem with controlled immigration? as long as they are only letting in the brightest and best. People who actually contribute to the country rather than leach off of it. Problem with the last government was that it let in all and sundry. Many of whom took the low end jobs that the chavs would normally do, and generally drove down wages across many business sectors. This may be good for the owners of the businesses, but not so much for those that work in said sectors. If the wages are being forced down, it also has a detrimental affect on the spending power of the British consumer. Affecting how much can be spent in our shops and buying services from our companies. Something that isn't exactly helping our economy at the moment..

That segment is also the biggest proportion of send money back home to support family left behind, exacerbating the problem.

ValorousBob
August 28 2012, 11:17:04 PM
In Canada, our economists are saying "we need more workers!" as the baby boomers age. So that explains the focus on importing workers.

It would be interesting to see how countries rank by immigration as a % of total population.

Canada has one of the highest % of naturalized citizens at *I think* 17%. The glorious "land of immigrants" to your south are at like 12% right now, which I believe is the lowest we've ever been. Canada and Singapore have the two most effective immigration policies in the world and you guys are drawing serious talent from around the world while the US just drifts along without a coherent immigration policy/theory/goal.

This is one of the most non-partisan, low hanging fruit type things we could deal with in the US. The type of work visa that deals with skilled workers is called the H1B visa and the US only hands out a certain number every year. For years now, the H1B visas run out in a few months. Last year we ran out in like 83 days or something absurd like that. Coincidentally, the biggest drag on our economy right now is a shortage of workers with the skills necessary for medium/high wage jobs in STEM fields. We refuse to let immigrants in to fill these jobs and we neglect to re-train our own people to fill them. We're fucking stupid.


edit: Source for some of this stuff (TIME article) (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2116713-1,00.html)

Lallante
August 29 2012, 10:02:54 AM
In Canada, our economists are saying "we need more workers!" as the baby boomers age.


Pretty much what is being said in the UK, Don't think anyone has a problem with controlled immigration? as long as they are only letting in the brightest and best. People who actually contribute to the country rather than leach off of it. Problem with the last government was that it let in all and sundry. Many of whom took the low end jobs that the chavs would normally do, and generally drove down wages across many business sectors. This may be good for the owners of the businesses, but not so much for those that work in said sectors. If the wages are being forced down, it also has a detrimental affect on the spending power of the British consumer. Affecting how much can be spent in our shops and buying services from our companies. Something that isn't exactly helping our economy at the moment..

I've never seen any evidence that this happened in the UK - can you cite some statistics?

Also your conclusions doesnt really follow because even if individual spending power dropped, there would be more consumers.

Varcaus
August 30 2012, 02:46:55 AM
Controled immagration is fine imo but people who refuse to learn a new language when they move makes 0 sense to me.

definatelynotKKassandra
August 30 2012, 06:01:56 AM
Controled immagration is fine imo but people who refuse to learn a new language when they move makes 0 sense to me.
What about people who just don't try particularly hard to learn the new language? It's not like people sticking to the expat community where they can avoid the embarassment of going to school is solely a phenomenon that occurs when people move to the West.

LoudSpeakly
August 30 2012, 06:40:06 AM
Controled immagration is fine imo but people who refuse to learn a new language when they move makes 0 sense to me.
What about people who just don't try particularly hard to learn the new language? It's not like people sticking to the expat community where they can avoid the embarassment of going to school is solely a phenomenon that occurs when people move to the West.

Not unique to immigration in any particular direction, and is equally silly either way.

To somehow avoid, even through osmosis, some hint of the native language of the country you're living in suggests someone actively trying to avoid contact with people outside of the community they feel comfortable in.

Lallante
August 30 2012, 08:54:52 AM
Controled immagration is fine imo but people who refuse to learn a new language when they move makes 0 sense to me.

Have you ever been in an English speaking expat community in a non-English speaking country? Half the people dont bother.

Lallante
August 30 2012, 08:56:16 AM
Lots of cab-driver opinions ITT.

"I don't mind them darkies except when they scrounge benefits, then we should shoot 'em"

ValorousBob
August 30 2012, 10:40:56 AM
Controled immagration is fine imo but people who refuse to learn a new language when they move makes 0 sense to me.

Have you ever been in an English speaking expat community in a non-English speaking country? Half the people dont bother.

That doesn't make it ok, that just means its not unique to any culture or nation. Besides, just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.

I agree with Varcaus, it happens a lot in California and it's pretty annoying. On a philosophical level, you should integrate into a country's society if you decide to move there.

Hel OWeen
August 30 2012, 10:56:05 AM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Lallante
August 30 2012, 02:00:20 PM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Why can't your country's "business model" include the steady flow of talented immigrants in? Why is that necessarily a failure if immigration can be relied upon.

Me
August 30 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Lots of cab-driver opinions ITT.

"I don't mind them darkies except when they scrounge benefits, then we should shoot 'em"

93% of cab drivers I've had were darkies. They're the only ones who stand the shit hours, pay and customers.

Me
August 30 2012, 03:15:26 PM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Why can't your country's "business model" include the steady flow of talented immigrants in? Why is that necessarily a failure if immigration can be relied upon.

Generally it is seen as more efficient to use immigrants as a short term solution as you increase incentives for your own population to fill the positions in the future (medical doctor scholarships for example). Also you need to pay them more since immigrants can go wherever to get work (to a point, I'm sure most 3rd world doctors don't really care if they go to England, Australia, Sweden or any other 1st world country to work so all these countries are competing thus driving wages up (I never bought into the supply curve being horizontal for skilled immigrant labour)).

The complete reasoning goes far beyond the scope of a forum post, but in a few points: National self reliability, development of human resources and boosting of the local education sector. Plus there is the inefficiency of immigrants on the GDP and public spending owing to the costs of attracting and getting them citizenised (is that a word? it should be) vs just educating someone here. Then there is as Jolin said above the fact that immigrants tend to send much of their income overseas thereby hurting GDP in the host country as the money isn't spent there.


If you care enough I could recommend some of the stuff I had to go through on this when I did Labour Economics at uni. Fake edit: at least I could if I could find the stuff but it doesn't seem to be accessible to me any more on the uni site.

Lallante
August 30 2012, 05:26:46 PM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Why can't your country's "business model" include the steady flow of talented immigrants in? Why is that necessarily a failure if immigration can be relied upon.

Generally it is seen as more efficient to use immigrants as a short term solution as you increase incentives for your own population to fill the positions in the future (medical doctor scholarships for example). Also you need to pay them more since immigrants can go wherever to get work (to a point, I'm sure most 3rd world doctors don't really care if they go to England, Australia, Sweden or any other 1st world country to work so all these countries are competing thus driving wages up (I never bought into the supply curve being horizontal for skilled immigrant labour)).

citation needed


The complete reasoning goes far beyond the scope of a forum post, but in a few points: National self reliability, development of human resources and boosting of the local education sector. Plus there is the inefficiency of immigrants on the GDP and public spending owing to the costs of attracting and getting them citizenised (is that a word? it should be) vs just educating someone here. Then there is as Jolin said above the fact that immigrants tend to send much of their income overseas thereby hurting GDP in the host country as the money isn't spent there

If you care enough I could recommend some of the stuff I had to go through on this when I did Labour Economics at uni. Fake edit: at least I could if I could find the stuff but it doesn't seem to be accessible to me any more on the uni site.
Why are any of these goals incompatible with immigration? All of them are arguably improved by immigration. You are going to have to provide some sources, statistics, evidence etc to back up these claims.

Its pretty trite picking out really simplistic economic principles (supply is higher, demand is the same, so price goes down!) and then drawing complex social conclusions from them.

ValorousBob
August 30 2012, 08:03:06 PM
citizenised (is that a word? it should be)

The word is naturalized, iirc.



Generally it is seen as more efficient to use immigrants as a short term solution as you increase incentives for your own population to fill the positions in the future (medical doctor scholarships for example). Also you need to pay them more since immigrants can go wherever to get work (to a point, I'm sure most 3rd world doctors don't really care if they go to England, Australia, Sweden or any other 1st world country to work so all these countries are competing thus driving wages up (I never bought into the supply curve being horizontal for skilled immigrant labour)).

The complete reasoning goes far beyond the scope of a forum post, but in a few points: National self reliability, development of human resources and boosting of the local education sector. Plus there is the inefficiency of immigrants on the GDP and public spending owing to the costs of attracting and getting them citizenised (is that a word? it should be) vs just educating someone here. Then there is as Jolin said above the fact that immigrants tend to send much of their income overseas thereby hurting GDP in the host country as the money isn't spent there.


If you care enough I could recommend some of the stuff I had to go through on this when I did Labour Economics at uni. Fake edit: at least I could if I could find the stuff but it doesn't seem to be accessible to me any more on the uni site.

I think you're talking about a different type of immigrant, mainly having temporary work visas. When I mentioned skilled immigrants coming to Canada/America/Singapore, they aren't usually coming to work for awhile, sending money home, and then leaving. Most of them originally come to one of these countries for school and then stay for job opportunities (or in the case of America, get sent home because our quotas are full). It's not really inefficient at all because even if they were going to a public college/uni, they were paying out of state tuition, which is fucking expensive. The cost of the gov't work to make them a full citizen is negligible compared to the taxes from the high wage job they'll be paying once they are citizens.


Oh and even though a lot of Latin American illegal immigrants send money home (usually called a remittance), they still massively help the US because they pay sales taxes and social security taxes but can't collect benefits because they're here illegally. They also drive down food prices with cheap agricultural labor (this is huge for California), and on average commit way less crimes because they know as soon as they get arrested they'll get deported. The last time I saw a statistic on this, it was estimated that illegal immigrants add several billion dollars to the US's GDP.

Hel OWeen
August 31 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Why can't your country's "business model" include the steady flow of talented immigrants in? Why is that necessarily a failure if immigration can be relied upon.

Because I don't know any reasonably sized country with an unemployment rate of 0%. Usually that means those people live off state-sponsored welfare (=taxes). It is my believe that a society is better off with trying to educate those people and bring them back into jobs. Of course this requires effort and poses costs initially which naturally corporations are trying to avoid. It's easier for them to just leech off some immigrants that are already qualified and the expenses for this have been paid by others. They also speculate on immigrants being OK with below-average wages.

Yeah, I know. Not everybody might be talented enough to become a rocket-scientist. But at the same time not every fucking job requires a rocket-scientist.

Dorvil Barranis
September 1 2012, 03:27:53 AM
As far as the "failure to educate your own populace" thing goes, I think there is a point there. In the US, medical school is terribly difficult to get in to, and terribly expensive. We end up importing a lot of doctors from India and other countries. It would make sense to me that we should be able to educate our own, but we aren't. One thing I've noticed since being in a shop next to an Indian grocery store is that those Indians sure know how to breed:)

I am all for more immigration to the US, brown people tend to vote for democrats.

Lallante
September 3 2012, 01:17:35 PM
Language is the key to successfull integration and job opportunities. Even if you don't learn it for yourself, do it for your children. Speak with them in the country's language, but also teach them your native language. They'll have a jump-start advantage over their peers in school and later on.

And of course, every country only wants the "good" immigrants. Which is understandable, be still very selfish. That way, countries currently not developed or generally "as nice" as your country, are depleted from their future outperformers/achievers.

My opinion is that if you need qualified immigrants to fill gaps, you as a society/country have badly failed in the past. Failed in predicting future needs, failed in educating your own people, failed in creating an environment encouraging your own people to seek careers in useful professions, failed to regulate wages/working conditions in a way that encourages people to pursue desireable jobs.

Why can't your country's "business model" include the steady flow of talented immigrants in? Why is that necessarily a failure if immigration can be relied upon.

Because I don't know any reasonably sized country with an unemployment rate of 0%. Usually that means those people live off state-sponsored welfare (=taxes). It is my believe that a society is better off with trying to educate those people and bring them back into jobs. Of course this requires effort and poses costs initially which naturally corporations are trying to avoid. It's easier for them to just leech off some immigrants that are already qualified and the expenses for this have been paid by others. They also speculate on immigrants being OK with below-average wages.

Yeah, I know. Not everybody might be talented enough to become a rocket-scientist. But at the same time not every fucking job requires a rocket-scientist.

If you knew ANYTHING about economics you would know that 0% unemployement is not a desirable nor achievable target - there is a natural rate of unemployment below which no adjustments to supply of jobs will make a difference.

Lallante
September 3 2012, 01:38:08 PM
As far as the "failure to educate your own populace" thing goes, I think there is a point there. In the US, medical school is terribly difficult to get in to, and terribly expensive. We end up importing a lot of doctors from India and other countries. It would make sense to me that we should be able to educate our own, but we aren't. One thing I've noticed since being in a shop next to an Indian grocery store is that those Indians sure know how to breed:)

I am all for more immigration to the US, brown people tend to vote for democrats.

I really hope every element of this post is a joke

Hel OWeen
September 4 2012, 01:25:40 PM
If you knew ANYTHING about economics you would know that 0% unemployement is not a desirable nor achievable target - there is a natural rate of unemployment below which no adjustments to supply of jobs will make a difference.

Where did I mention a goal of 0% unemployment rate?

Germany has currently a low one (official: 6.8% in August 2012), which still leaves us with 2.9 million unemployed. I think it's reasonable to assume that some of those could be trained to fit some demanding jobs instead of going after immigrants to cover those needs.

Immigration is good and a welcomed input to knowledge/culture of a society. Relying on it is a sure downwards spirale. It's basically the state version of corporate outsourcing: might work with a project scope/fill short-term gaps, deplets inhouse knowledge in the long run, turning your once "sweat-shops" into your future "corporate overlords".

Hast
September 4 2012, 01:53:10 PM
Immigration is good and a welcomed input to knowledge/culture of a society. Relying on it is a sure downwards spirale. It's basically the state version of corporate outsourcing: might work with a project scope/fill short-term gaps, deplets inhouse knowledge in the long run, turning your once "sweat-shops" into your future "corporate overlords".

I would really like to have the sources you base this on, because it looks like complete nonsense.

Dorvil Barranis
September 5 2012, 02:39:07 AM
As far as the "failure to educate your own populace" thing goes, I think there is a point there. In the US, medical school is terribly difficult to get in to, and terribly expensive. We end up importing a lot of doctors from India and other countries. It would make sense to me that we should be able to educate our own, but we aren't. One thing I've noticed since being in a shop next to an Indian grocery store is that those Indians sure know how to breed:)

I am all for more immigration to the US, brown people tend to vote for democrats.

I really hope every element of this post is a joke

Not really joking, the demographic in the US is changing, and I think that is a good thing. I think that we deplete some of the top talent from developing countries is not particularly cool, but it is a global economy.

Lallante
September 5 2012, 07:44:03 AM
As far as the "failure to educate your own populace" thing goes, I think there is a point there. In the US, medical school is terribly difficult to get in to, and terribly expensive. We end up importing a lot of doctors from India and other countries. It would make sense to me that we should be able to educate our own, but we aren't. One thing I've noticed since being in a shop next to an Indian grocery store is that those Indians sure know how to breed:)

I am all for more immigration to the US, brown people tend to vote for democrats.

I really hope every element of this post is a joke

Not really joking, the demographic in the US is changing, and I think that is a good thing. I think that we deplete some of the top talent from developing countries is not particularly cool, but it is a global economy.

This trend has reversed in the last decade. A lot of the best people from BRIC countries are training in the US (/UK etc) and now going home to super high powered jobs rather than staying. The future of the world is China, Brazil etc tbh.

ValorousBob
September 10 2012, 03:44:10 AM
This trend has reversed in the last decade. A lot of the best people from BRIC countries are training in the US (/UK etc) and now going home to super high powered jobs rather than staying. The future of the world is China, Brazil etc tbh.

I agree with the facts, but not the analysis. BRIC countries are only the future because America has terrible immigration policy. The fact remains that most of those educated people would PREFER to stay in the US, but we don't let them. Luckily, both Republicans and Democrats have expressed interest in fixing that aspect of our immigration policy so there's good reason to believe we'll get our shit together.