# Tag Info

8

It is worth noting that OP's original question before I edited it asked, "why would economists lie to us?" This already leaves a poor taste in my mouth; such a question is loaded enough as it is, only good for picking fights. The author stated at the bottom of the Progressive Dairy article is a lawyer, not an economist, and seems to be the basis for some of ...

6

There are numerous reasons why one would want to stay in a particular country even though earning power is lower. These are usually summarized as "frictions" in the labor market. Culture, familiarity with an area, language, family are all non-negligible "frictions". I note that while there will be a tendency to vote this closed as not economic, I think ...

6

On remittances: It is not unusual to hear about income being sent home by, say, US immigrants. However, the product of their labor and the side effects of their intellectual capital, sometimes called positive spillover, do not occur in the home country. As such, they are not as beneficial to the home country as some counterfactual world where an equally ...

5

I didn't see the evidences on the recent European immigration, but the event is similar to the Mariel Boatlift story in Card (1990): The Mariel immigrants increased the population and labor force of the Miami metropolitan area by 7 percent. Most of the immigrants were relatively unskilled: as a result, the proportional increase in labor supply to less-...

5

You’re right, the migration of workers boost the economy. It’s a stylized fact. It may have political consequences, though, but it is not the part of the analysis of economics. Let’s consider $A$ the set of active labour force of an economy before, and $A'$ after the migration. Then $A$ is the subset of $A'$: $$A \subseteq A'$$ This notation means that the ...

5

Are current flows of migration bigger that they were in the past? We tend to forget history because the numbers involved currently are smaller relative to world population. For instance, the 8.8 million immigrants who came to the United States in 1901-1910 period is of similar magnitude to the 9.1 million immigrants who came in the 1991-2000 period, but ...

4

Here is a chart from the OECD, which shows the net fiscal impact of migrants on their recipient country (i.e. by how much to they contribute or withdraw from the welfare state, albeit excluding in-kind benefits such as healthcare). For most Western countries, Denmark included, migrants are modest net positive contributors ("they pay in more than they take ...

3

Occupational licensing may be one reason why: Occupational licensing is not unique to the United States. Based on information gathered in 2012 from the then twenty- seven nations in the European Union (EU), between 9 and 24 percent of European workers are subject to occupational licensing, which translates to between 19 million ...

2

Census State to State Migration Flows are available from 2004 - 2016. Census's State Intercensal Tables: 2000-2010 has annual state population data over the 2000-2010 period. Combining this with Census's State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2017 gives population series for back to 2004.

2

I think it is too strong a statement to say that immigration always and everywhere "improves" the economy, but there are some factors that do make it helpful (or less damaging) that are not necessarily obvious. The most important thing is that each new immigrant creates demand in the economy roughly equal to one additional job (assuming he/she has an income)...

2

The typical analyses which tend to pretty unambiguously show net positive impact of immigration on the economy (despite the likelihood that some specific labour market segments may experience lower wages, which is a negative for workers in that sector at least in the short run) could differ from analyses of specific undertakings to accommodate large numbers ...

2

There's a lot going on in this question, so I'll focus on the labor-economics part of the question rather than the political-economy part of the question. If it is the case that these migrant workers are being paid considerably better than their alternative labor options, but they are at the same time being deprived of rights they might value (access to ...

2

It somewhat depends what you mean by that. The process is more complicated with migrants to cities also acquiring skills/education there, e.g. Another important piece of work related to education-based motivation is Lucas (2004), who constructs a two-sector model where the urban sector pays a higher wage due to its high-skilled jobs which are not ...

1

Yes, this was written about at some length in Progress and Poverty by the American economist Henry George in the late 1800s.

1

There are actually more pros then cons for the "home countries" in my opinion, and I have official/credible sources to back this opinion up. Financial remittances have been recognized as an important developmental vehicle associated with migration. Financial remittance flows have steadily increased in volume from the 1990s to the present day. In 2017, ...

1

Workers may have different skills. If immigrant workers are good at farming then domestic workers can shift into non-farming activities. Workers increase the total population and larger populations can sustain greater specialization. For example, with enough people we can have an artisanal pencil sharpener and professional crossword puzzle maker but a ...

1

It's been too long since I read those, so I don't exactly remember whether they answer your two specific questions, but if you are interested in the topic you should definitely have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bottom_Billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Bottom_Billion and the corresponding TED talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible