The economics of immigration 

Thanks. That's the tone we go for. When I started this show, Casey said it should feel like a conversation with a well-read friend at a bar.

That's 100% the feel. Keep up the great work!

its not that they help the economy either. it depends on the situation. Thats why the US and every other country changes their policies over the years...There was times the US didnt allow anyone in. During a recession or depression having a flood of new immigrants would almost certainly hurt the economy. In the arguments of this video hes talking about any immigrant, not looking at specific times and effects in history up until now in the US and other countries or empires. or looking at specific waves of immigrants. The migrant caravans a few years ago were all young men and low skilled workers thats not the same as nobel prize winners. His argument at the end made zero sense at all. Basically "Who cares if immigrants effect the country badly at first, it will all work out at the end" Like you really think all the people who are poor in the United States NOW want to here that...

Thanks man. Always appreciate your support.

And what is your IQ? 80? :D What they depend is "studies" from some profesor from university, that put ten of thousands of students in debt for rest of their lives. And spends his time to prove that legal immigration is not 100% bad, what at the end is presented as a prove that illegal immigration is also not bad... It is like saying that since there are study that buying stuff is good for economy, stilling stuff should also be as good. I have to tell you US is so strange. You have a such a crazy crap propaganda, identity politics etc. no wander that propaganda from this channel sims to you sth "normal" for low IQ people like you ...

That encourages immigrants to find newer areas on outskirts of cities and towns or choose rural areas to reside in. This rejuvenates the rural economy or brings new jobs within the outskirts of the city where immigrants live. Newer areas to reside in brings more jobs and benefits to the city's economy. The US per-capita income has been on the rise by 2.25% yearly with GDP growth of 2.30% since 2014. Accounting for inflation of 2-2.9% the income of a normal US citizen has steadily increased over the years even with stricter immigration laws. In the years of early 90s till late 2000 and the GDP of US grew at a more than 3% during which it saw huge intake of immigrant and naturalization of immigrant population as US citizen. The per-capita income rose by a massive 3.30% as compared to today's 2.25% with stricter immigration laws.

Housing is definitely an issue same with other existing Infrastructure as well as finite assets like out north sea oil (UK) , farm land , woodland , mines ect there benefit spreads more thinly when talking about citizenship. Also slow to change resources like housing. On wages when theres new people taking one kind of job wages go down in that area and areas like it and up in others from higher demand. Higher income professions bring in more tax money lower spread it more thinly but most legal Immigrants are working age so you miss paying for many years of schooling you would for someone that spent there whole life hear. We also have falling populations as in rich countries having children is expensive and in poor ones its an asset / extra labor. Thats good for the planet but bad for the national pension system and immigration can help balance the numbers.

What you describe has been felt in the UK. Some cities thrive as Brexit gave the power back to the people, driving migrants out. Can't remember where exactly it was, but the Economist reported lower crime, higher wages, better opportunities, lower housing prices, less drain on local budgets. win win win win win oh and Karan, that obv makes no sense. Growth has been slowing down in all of the most developed countries, with the EU's growth basically getting killed by their core value of promotion of immigration.

My example was US specific where legal immigration is encouraged over refugees intake. The refugee crisis of Europe and illegal immigration, which I agree is more of a curse to the economy for short periods of time. UK was already dealing with huge swathes of uncontrolled immigration from the 2000s which went unchecked that has led to brexit and stronger protectionist sentiments. During this protectionist tenure the wages might increase along with lowered housing prices, but over the years it won't be sustainable for the employers to maintain employees with higher wages (for common jobs) which would lead to outsourcing of jobs. With that being said there should be tenures of governments with protectionist policies followed by governments encouraging legal immigration. In the end legal immigration is essential.

If only cities handled their crappy zoning laws.

What are air quotes ?

Super nice guy

Isnt that the free market americans always want and scream for?

If you can buy goods and services for increasingly lower prices thanks to immigration as a lower class person, that's not exactly nothing. The loss of easy jobs for lower-class people is partly counter-balanced by having a wider range of job opportunities they didn't have on top of it. In the end it isn't much more than 'dey tuk ur jerbz', and if they have grievances with systematic issues, they should take a look at monetary policy and other interventionist policies of the past century that has slowly eroded the Western middle class.

Welfare needs to be easier to get. Universal Basic Income needs to be proposed and passed by voters so that everyone feels safe to have a place to live and food at the very least.

Not everyone is going to be promoted, you are correct in saying this. It is also absolutely misguided to say that 100% are going to be forced out and thus compete for these jobs higher up in the ranking.

If you think immigration is bad in terms of causing unemployment, automation is going to hit hard

If 10 immigrants come, they need a foreman, and most of the time this a local person.

No but even if 2 construction workers were to become foreman they create ten more construction workers then maybe 3 of those grow and add 15 instead of ten workers, so on and so forth. The main point is you cant determine who brings jobs and who doesnt because regardless of title it is the individual who decides to either work for a business or create a business. Essentially, either way one looks for jobs and one looks for a way to create jobs. The only difference is one works for one and the other creates for more than one.

Numbers in wikipedia, on remittances, monies flowing out of countries.

me too. I dont think the only place I didnt agree was when he rebutted the inequality increase from immigrants a little too easy. Also little details like in 9.07 when he forgot to mention the rest of the sentence may not have been bad intended but... still it did help him close the whole thing by saying "the math in its totality works" which is a little arrogant but still the most sober view I have seen in a while on this subject.

It really depends on what type of immigrant and the amount of low skill workers a place possess. Keep in mind, the reason why United States became so powerful is mainly due to the brain drain from the rest of the world through their various ethnic cleansing. Of course, we must not forget our founding fathers that refused to pay taxes to the British. Oh the irony being that United States is a country that taxes you based on citizenship and not work place. Uncle Sam, why must you be worse than the Brits you replaced?

I'm gonna have to look into that - not sure what it is!

Louis Foglia Sweet! Basically, it's reducing economic growth to a truly sustainable level. Reducing everything from consumption, to work hours, to travel distance for goods, to programmed obsolescence. It's in a way in opposition to sustainable development, which tries to continue growth through sustainable means, often creating a cycle the degrowth movement claims that wherein things become for energy efficient, we end up using more energy because more goods are created. That being said, it's not looking for people to abandon all modern conveniences and live off the land in some sort of anarchist utopia. Either way, it's the tenth anniversary of their first conference this year. Might be worth checking out 👍

It is half truth. Keep reading.

The problem isn't the immigrants, but the shitty left-wing economic institutions of Europe.

Daniel Sadjadi It depends on the economy of the country. What is considered a flood of migrants in a wealthy countries in the EU doesn't necessarily means the same for poorer countries in the EU. Some countries can afford it but some can't. So saying a blanket statement like there is no flood of immigrants in the EU can be right and wrong at the same time. Not only that, a lot of the western European countries just say they wanted to help each other but they really just want to push all the migrant problems to the border countries. This is also why Italy closed their border. Italy asked EU to help them but got ignored. Allowing migrants to enter will only increase their national debt by that point.

remilia scarlet well yeah, Italians have a hard time getting ahead working in Italy. I think a big problem is that people worldwide expect to “get ahead” financially. They think it’s a right.

While I agree with you that migration isn't too intense in Europe overall, I would like to highlight that most migrants/refugees end up living in the city, causing most of the people living in the city to feel a noticeable increase in migrants/refugees living in Austria. In my daily commute using public transport, about 10-15% of people are ethnically middle eastern or African, with most of them fortunately either speaking English or German well enough to communicate if needed. Now, on to the "flood" that you claimed doesn't exist (Statistics from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior (www.bmi.gv.at/301/Statistiken/start.aspx#jahr)): Between January and October of 2014 Austria (where I'm from) received 70000 Asylum Applications, only 20000 of which were actually from countries like Syria where there is currently a war going on. Between 1999 and 2013 the mean of yearly asylum applicants was about 20000 (in 2013 there were 17500 applicants). In 2014 this number this number increased by 60% to 28000, with there being a +~140% increase in applicants on average starting from September 2014. In 2015 this number increased again (by +215%) to 88000, with the increases being especially noticeable towards the end of the year. In 2016 the number decreased to 42000, which is still more than double compared to what the rate was like in 2013. In 2017 it decreased again, down to 28000, which again is still more than they were set up for. As most of the Asylum Seekers receive financial payments and aren't allowed to work initially, they're costing the state a lot of money and in most cases, the sheer amount of money asylum seekers consume is a financial burden on the economy. The problem often is that the amount of these recent migrants has been overwhelming the system because they haven't been evenly distributed in the European Union (Statistics from Eurostat for 2017 as a reference - *Data is for first-time asylum applicants in 2017* (ec.europa.eu/eurostat/news/themes-in-the-spotlight/asylum2017)): European Total: 649000 Applications, equaled 1270 applicants per million inhabitants on average. Austria: 22000 Applicants, *2500 per Million* (3.4% of total) Germany: 198000 Applicants, *2400 per Million* (30.5% of total) Sweden: 22000 Applicants, *2220 per Million* (3.4% of total) Italy: 126000 Applicants, *2100 per Million* (19.5% of total) France: 91000 Applicants, *1360 per Million* (14% of total) Denmark: 3125 Applicants, *544 per Million* (0.5% of total) UK: 33310 Applicants, *506 per Million* (5.1% of total) Hungary: 3115 Applicants, *318 per Million* (0.5% of total) Estonia: 180 Applicants, *138 per Million* (0.03% of total) Czech Republic: 1140 Applicants, *108 per Million* (0.2% of total) Slovakia: 150 Applicants, *27 per Million* (0.02% of total) There is also a really noticeable gender imbalance: 2013: 71% male 2014: 75% male 2015: 72% male 2016: 67% male 2017: 60% male The crime argument also doesn't invalidate my original argument, as in the context of the refugee crisis, a disproportionate amount of these new migrants commit sexual crimes, mainly perpetrated by violent illegal migrants from countries like Afghanistan or Morocco that abused the already overwhelmed system and tried mixing in with the other refugees to illegally get into Europe, which is why at least in my opinion *most of the perpetrators not being real refugees*. To finish off, I'll just say that I'm all for refugees temporarily or permanently (if they can improve our society) living in European countries, but I find it a bit ridiculous that people looking in from the outside say that Austria is somehow acting immorally for wanting to limit the rate of new migrants entering its borders and checking the GPS timeline of people claiming to be syrian refugees. I hope this has cleared up the reason as to why I have this opinion. Have a nice day :) (PS: I've spent far too much time on writing this ^^)

Daniel Sadjadi Those are blatant lies and you know it. In about the last 3 years alone Germany has gotten about 2 million refugees, that alone would make more than 2% of the population. Dresden, the city where the unrests were after a father got stabbed by an afghani after he tried to protect a girl from being molested, has seen an increase from 3.9% in 2005 to an estimated 20% migrants today. There is very solid reason for concern when in Frankfurt 75% of children below are African/Arabic, with low chances of ever attaining proficiency in the German language as they're not compelled to learn, but almost guaranteed to stay. Crime has been going up across the board, especially vicious ones like rape, armed robbery and murder. Just ask some German about "Colognes Silvester", new years eve a few years ago, where there were *dozens* of rapes in public spaces, exclusively perpetrated by refugees. What do they get here you may ask? Housing, clothing, food, healthcare and a few education options for free plus at least 125€ pocket money. It is estimated that this will cost the country about 400 billions euros in the next years, as many are projected to live on public money till the day they die. Meanwhile the budget for our elderly is drained, making senile people, who payed their whole lives into a government mandated system, fishing in garbage bins for plastic bottles they can return for 25 cents, a common sight.

It's too cold up there 😂❄

@@marioferreira7605 your using immigration to fix a problem caused by emigration

@@topman8565 "shortage", aka "we refuse to compete for workers".

And incomplete.

Is there an article you can point me to that sums up the main issues?? Dm on Twitter with any info. @loufoglia

That is true because the community "segregates" itself from them. Imagine when your supermarkets actually also sell the items from their home country with a lower price (because supermarkets hv the bargaining power and such shops dont), landlords dont discriminate against certain nationality groups and so on - the immigrants will then integrate themselves because like you said, theyll find the cheapest alternative...

US gives 2M green cards a year. I'd say that's enough. We need to do away with the "temporary" visa BS.

@Daniel Sadjadi no it isn't beneficial socially

The only reason why it wouldn't be socially beneficial is if natives are xenophobic and make immigrants outcasts and fearmonger the nation to be afraid of immigrants.

00sevensargent Ah, I got my hopes up in the beginning for more on that point of view.

yeah I know these are basic points that an essay and papers are graded from high school

He did. You just weren't listening or aren't versed with economic literature. 1st, immigrants can't steal jobs. The labor market is dynamic not fixed and a new equilibrium is always being formed. This is evident by the whole immigrants create demand for goods and services and supply reacts. In the short-term, immigrants may impact native born lower educated workers but in the longer term, those individuals will invest in human capital and move up the ladder to jobs. The ones then hurt are previous low-skill immigrants. That is to say, that in the longer term, immigrants are competing against each other.

@@apoc4223 your probably right man its a very difficult subject when talking about ethics and politics there are no single right answers

Isn't this "partial equilibrium"?. It's easy to limit your scope and come up with a conclusion. But think about this: What happens when the Employer wins? I assume you mean he earns a higher profit. Where do these profits go? They go right back into the economy. He hires more workers (helps natives), spends more (helps local businesses), or saves up at a local bank which makes it easier for others to get a loan. Like in chess, when you think about the economy in one or two steps, you will inevitably lose. Think of the broader consequences, always think a few moves ahead.

That's the "math" I meant, in the long run everyone will benefit. But in the short term of things, as the news said it's probably going to be the low level native that's gonna be affected the most. Long term solutions such as "well get them new jobs' or "promote them" isn't that "Yipee! everyone wins!" thing. For one let's say in construction, 10 lowest position natives get displaced by 10 immigrants. Solution "then promote them". Well the employer says "we only have 2 vacancies for higher level jobs". What happens to the 8? How sure are we that they'll be able to find another job? "But what about newer businesses sprouting or local businesses expanding?" Well sure, but how long? 1 month? 2 months? 8 months? By that time then, do you think these displaced natives have money to put food in their table for 1 month? What about the loans they already took? "Giving back to the economy". You seriously think employer spending will directly help the low end workers? I mean sure on paper it'll look good. But we do have a saying "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". "Easier loans". This is the low end workers of the spectrum. I doubt they'll easily be able to find loans thanks to the "credit score" system. It's nice to think of the broader consequences. But make sure in your first two steps, you don't slip off a banana peel. The biggest problem when looking at things like these is that the "social aspect" can never be accurately measured. And going for the "big picture" while not caring about the here and now, just comes off as greedy and merciless. Helping local businesses to what degree? Is it enough to warrant expansion and create news jobs? Does the new jobs match with the skills of the displaced natives? This really is just a wealth redistribution program. Natives lose salaries. Immigrants are underpaid. The employers? Sure they'll buy a new Lamborghini, probably a new iPhone, etc. I hope the construction of the Lamborghini and iPhones creates jobs for the displaced natives. Oh wait, they're made overseas.

@@mystirboy commenting for later.

Millions of software engineers are against it. They've been laid off and shut out of many Tech companies, after being made to train their replacements. Stand outside of Cisco, Walmart, IBM, Microsoft, Disney, etc. when work gets out.

He didn't cover that. Nor those citizens who end up on unemployment when replaced. Nor the proliferation of ESL classes at the schools. Nor the discriminatory shut out of citizenry from so much as applying for open positions at H1B shops. There's a whole lot this video didn't disclose.