How migration could make the world richer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Many of the recent political shifts in the West-the election of Donald Trump, the rise of populism in Europe and Brexit-can be partially attributed to the fear of mass migration. Yet increasing migration is one of the quickest ways to make the world richer.
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on TH-cam: econ.st/2xvTKdy
For more from Economist Films visit: films.economist...
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: / theeconomist
Follow The Economist on Twitter: / theeconomist
Follow us on Instagram: / theeconomist
Follow us on Medium: / the_economist
The Economist is an example of journalism in decay.
True, they really changed jeez
what's wrong
It leads to wage stagnation for the workers of the rich countries. Great for the corporations.
Not if developed countries have strong workers rights, such as a living minimum wage, work protection, or even a UBI or GUI. If wages are too high corporations will relocate anyway, so that argumen5 doesn’t work.
francis z right wingers are insane, literally... they love their hatred more than they love their own personal rights.
@@Hecatonicosachoron left wingers are insane
@@traveler5973 If valuing empirical evidence and living in reality makes left wingers insane, they're on the right track.
@@wildestdreams4012 HAHA your name says it all! you leftist are living in a fantasy
Make the world richer. Funny. The question is, where will most of those wealth goes to? The top 1%?
The wealth goes to the readers of 'The Economist' and its advertisers.
Perhaps there is more to the world than simply economics? Culture, values, language, security and quality of life are a few things that come to mind 🤔
"Quality of life", as You mentioned is actually economics - it is not "more than economics". And so what we have left from your comment is: "Culture, values, language, security". "Security" has nothing to do with immigration because the data already shows that migrants commit less crime than the inhabitants of any given country. So, now what is left are: "culture, values, language". "Values and language" are part of culture so, what You are really concerned about is: "Culture". Just say it amigo, don't beat around the bush and make me dissect your comment like this: You just don't want to be around people who have a different culture than yours.
Man, this is called "The economist"
@@Eusantdac In some places migrants actually do commit more crime than the natives. So your statement is factually wrong. And there is more to quality of life than economics. So here you are also wrong.
My quality of life is reduced substantially if I am forced to live in a multicultural society, and looking at the data, It seems like I am far from the only person who has this preference.
Value and quality of life are part of economics already. They are talking about an economic analysis.
Short answer: better too.
oh stop it! ...this is so wrong on so many levels! ... are you really saying that the Philippine woman who spent her entire life cleaning ( i.e. slaving) just to send money to her family - has benefited ??? These cases should be decreasing - but unfortunately , they are not! These ppl should be able to work and live in their native countries , where they won't miss their family and have a decent life THERE, not in the (developed ) West. The economies of the ' poor' countries should be tackled instead of this immigration propaganda, where only the land- , industry, real-estate - owners would benefit!
Go to google and find out how much money Africans immigrants send to Africa every year.its more than the Aids rich countries send to Africa.
Also immigrants use their experiences they acquired living in West to build successful businesses in their countries.
@@kiswindsidaguigma9261 I'm well aware of this, I've also done my bit of travelling through the years... This should not be the default! Africans should thrive and enjoy their (professional) life in Africa! I'm aware why Africans badly want to escape Africa asap, but this should stop!as well as exploitation of Africa should stop- the riches of Africa should finally benefit Africa and Africans... Even if that means "we from Eu/Us/rest of the world" need to pay more for our mobile phones and etc. Ofc your governments are happy to see the African diaspora is sending so much money - so they are happy with the status quo. Government and system improvements are needed, backed up with the countries that have caused problem in Africa due to the colonial past. Africans (Asians, east Europeans, etc ) are now flodding the 'rich west' to find out that life is not as milk and honey as they were told - only the land, industry and real estate owners are benefitting from migrations.
What an utterly ignorant comment. Cleaning is not slaving. Of course she has benefited, as has her family and her country. She makes 5-10 times the money cleaning in the West than she would be at home doing much harder work. You saw in the video how the money she sent back home is aiding the education of family members.
@@TheUrbanEpicure true. It is a service that she provides. Working as cleaner does not mean that she's beneath you at all. People usually equates less lucrative work with negative value.
Surely these comments will be decent...
in these times, a lot of people will have misconceptions related to legal immigration/integration, illegal immigration, or refugee status, asylum, etc...
😂😂
It's usually well off white people who are pro-immigration but they never live by Troublesome immigrants
@@AmericaFirstRifleman Is there any difference between troublesome natives/locals and troublesome immigrants?
Nick 😂😂😂
Please stop overlooking the negative externalities.. yes we understand that it will boost GDP but this is a very multi-faceted issue
Please explain those "negative externalities"
@@jonas6259
Cultural erosion. Loss of nationalism, and there would eventually be no such thing as a 'country' anymore when you let any stranger live in your country.
It will also allow illegal criminal activity into any country. Crime goes over borders.
There would be no welfare State anymore when you are supporting such a large population of people who are a drain on the economy of a country.
It would be absolute chaos if richer countries did not control their borders. It would be like committing suicide
Immigration to Australia has resulted in the GDP per capita shrinking.
@@zhongxina6621 only an economist would call such things "externalities" -- to most people such things are the fundamental elements of human life.
@@chriswatson1698 What's your date range & source, Chris?
The IMF PPP per capita for Australia since 1980, US dollars:
1980 $11K
1990 $19K
2000 $29K
2010 $42K
2019 $54K
Where's the shrinkage?
When an economist says "free lunch", you should immediately question that. The better question is "free lunch for who?"
If us to were to prepare lunch together, it would decrease cost for both of us
No it wouldn't. Transaction costs. If we capture the state, and bring back slavery, instead of just wage slavery, I'd propose a bill to send me free sandwiches, and you too if you sign it.
@@yeow23 Okaaay, I don't know how that escalated from migration to slavery in the span of one comment.
But yeah, I can also name some concepts Relative Comparative Advantage and Economies of Scale.
There is a reason why the world is richer than it ever was. Migration plays a part in it and - like Trade - is not a zero-sum game.
@@nick-4981 Get back to work wagie, sandwiches need to be made. And, don't wish your wife is going to do it. She has to get up early to go to her government job, which probably pays more than yours.
@@nick-4981 if you can't discern a bald face lie from an economist about 'free lunches', then you don't deserve freedom.
Well, i believe pro migration policies help, but 200+ countries have open borders means people will just migrate to the richest countries (UK, USA, Germany, etc). Combine that with the housing crisis in those countries and your GDP number doesn't add.
Well, it’s not necessarily open borders, and the housing crisis can be solved easily by building more homes. Which creates more work in construction and the demand of more labour. In the end there are more useful assets in the economy as well (the houses built).
The housing crisis in the UK is a political failure, not an economic necessity. It’s easily solvable.
@@Hecatonicosachoron To put more homes into a city, you have to build up or out. Both options are a drop in living standard. Migrants adversely affect the quality of life of ordinary people in Australia. Of course the property speculators make huge profits, and the construction companies make huge profits at the expense of taxpayers, making infrastructure that would not be necessary without our high immigration levels. The construction company workers like their taxpayer funded jobs too.
Taxes spent on infrastructure for the benefit of foreigners, count as GDP, which the governments can brag about as "economic growth".
Chris Watson building homes isn’t a drop in living standards. You are categorically mistaken and being overall ridiculous.
Doesn't UK have more vacant houses than homeless people?
Yeh it makes the "brain drain," of some nations worse.
This can cause so many problems beyond GDP
What about indigenous culture being replaced by the mass migration?
reality is no one cares lol
@@Zex-4729 such a shame, sacrificing thousands of years of culture and traditions all for money and material wealth, if this is the case, we deserve it.
@Alternative View Yes.
They don’t care. They want a global culture, global belief system, global economy, and global government.
Protecting "indigenous culture" seems like an excuse for ethnonationalism to me. The best culture is the one that produces the most value for it's members, which we know gaining large numbers of new workers, thinkers, and customers does. Let people go where they produce the most value, I don't want anyone's irrational desire for some 19th century esque ethno state to make me poorer and my society weaker.
there is more to a nation than GDP growth.
@Klantvinder.com "... the world population." Yes, but they frame it in terms of GDP. They are saying that you can increase GDP between 50-150% by throwing open our borders. What they fail to mention is who will be getting that money. Nothing here seems to take into account the strain that would have on standards of living of the primary recipients of open migration or the amount of time it would take to realize these benefits. A mass rush of new migrants will not mean an immediate mass of new jobs for them to take or a new mass of housing for those migrants. The economist is advocating a policy without taking into account the realities of how that policy would be implemented. Much as we malign them, we run our countries with politicians and not economists, because decisions like this need to take into account many different elements; not just GDP.
@@dhermitmorse You just only have to do it in a intelligent manner. I would say Australia and Canada have gotten more benefits than cons even when they dont have a perfect system.
there isnt
@@Cnwkchiwvekx all a nation has is cooperate growth? how sad for you
@@0401412740 for who?
indecent to not explain about the negative aspects of working in the UAE. The truth is that many migrants in the middle east and partly also in Europe are exploited and underpaid, even to the extent that migrants in the Middle East can be treated as second class citizens (see. working conditions in the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait for low skilled workers). If you're going to make a video about a multifaceted problem, don't just show one, rose -tinted side, where "migrants" are better off by moving. Even though many countries, like Ethiopia and Ghana have universities and skilled workers, the question for them is not whether they can send their workers, rather, how they can retain their skilled workforce, and attract skilled workers in their respective diaspora in foreign countries back. This is also going to be a challenge worth addressing in the future imo.
I can personally vouch for dubai on this and uae in general. The local Emirati live a high life while workers live the lowest compares ANYWHERE in the world. I tried it for a week. It was a punishment by my uncle for being a rebel
@@DakhniURDU I'm sorry you had to go through that =(
I did read an article about UAE years ago and some of the workers were complaining about the fact that the Americans in Dubai are happy to be there because they have people they can treat like servants ☹️.
As an African,I'm gobsmacked by the fact that people can go get educated elsewhere and still not want to come back to the continent to help out their countries. The world has taken a lot from us and if none of us are here, we will turn around one day to find that we aren't considered citizens in our own countries. On the other hand,I don't blame people that leave. The corruption and blatant disregard for humans and their rights is enough to drive people to claim 'leaving my country is an achievement'☹️☹️😒
Fun fact - Ethiopians that I have CE across in my country are those that have been here for more than 20 years. I'm yet to meet someone my age from there or who has come here since Ethiopia started to have a stable economy and rising GDP. I always wish other countries can look to them for inspiration as that economy was practically non-existent in the early 90s.
The lesson here is that perhaps the grass is not greener on the other side and perhaps people need to try and better themselves in their home countries as a priority first before falling for exploitive traps in a richer country. Employers don’t have your backs and they just see you as a mere number that can make them a profit. They rarely have any interest in paying you a fair wage for what you are truly valued or worth!
This is a one-sided, biased argument from the Economist. They should have interviewed economists opposing mass migration too. Don't get me wrong, I just wanted to see an unbiased argument about immigration, but that's not the case with this video.
He's making a nonsense argument. If someone is making $2 a day and moves to the US and earns $15 an hour, 8 hours a day... clearly he's increased his daily earnings from $2 to $120, a 5900% increase. Clearly, the chief beneficiaries are the people moving to rich countries and the poor countries they move from (remittances).
He's simultaneously suggesting that non-engineers/non-managers in the US will fill these roles... for reasons. This video never clearly explains how low skilled workers in the US manage to move up the chain to "not compete" with these immigrants. The video also fails to explain why an excess supply of low skilled workers wouldn't cause the value of labor to stagnate in these richer countries. His argument basically amounts to "free money" with no downsides.
I was born on a Thursday, but not last Thursday.
Could you please tell who are these 'economists opposing mass migration'? Because I don't think there are such a thing.
@@smogunner sure, George Borjas is one of them. Keep in mind, the video is not about just immigration but mass migration. There's difference between these two. Also, remittances exist because of immigration restrictions. Otherwise immigrants would bring those people with themselves whomever they send remittances to.
P C you are operating under the fallacy that the number of jobs is constant.
It isn’t. Immigrants boost demand. More demand = more jobs.
Where I live in Ireland there has quite a bit of migration in recent years are we have a infastructure problem here (particularly hosuing shortage) and it has made matters worse
Because third world immigrants who failed to develop anything in their own land are not going to be able to do it elsewhere either
Looking at only global money as the sole metric really doesn’t tell the whole story. Countries with internal subgroups always have additional challenges.
I didn't feel you dealt with the brain drain argument at all
It was subtle, but he did say that there's no evidence that trapping skilled people in a poor city/country will benefit said city/country.
Yes but we are not talking about developing countries stopping people from emigrating, we are talking about developing countries letting migrants in or not.
But she sponsored her nephew for education....it can b a cycle to educate the third world
Brain drain is irrelevant, when the smart people are not getting utilized properly in poorer countries. At least by going to a richer country they can send back remittances and increase trade opportunities.
Far right countries like Poland and Hungary, who have recently blocked migration, and set up LGBT free zones have seen their youth flee the country in record numbers.
Its projected they will lose 25% of their population in the next few decades.
As soon as migrant hating far right takes over, a country collapses. You get a fake temporary wealth surge to the ultra rich, but then the country collapses from the foundation up.
Australia doesn't need Chinese immigrants to trade with China. I am old enough to remember the 1970s, when there were few non-European migrants in Australia. Multiculturalism has done nothing for Australia. It has not made Australia more interesting. Those who want to hang out with Asians and Africans because they are more "interesting" should go to Africa or Asia.
This doesn't take into account the social and cultural clashes and tensions that DO arise, which aren't quantified on an economic plan.
So this is why they removed dislikes lol
Demographic changes are something that I don't like.
Dude, you're seriously against human development ? Is that even possible? You can't ask the world to stay the same just because you want it, is like try to don't get aged and change as you grow up
As African I said no
We Africans need to improve our economies staying and work on our countries, I don't want make western countries richer.
Sure, worker productivity goes up when moving from 3rd world to developed countries, but there isn’t space to suddenly fit an extra 750 million people in those efficient countries. An open borders system would need some sort of system to incentivize some to stay in underdeveloped countries so that we don’t even the world out by simply overpopulating Western Europe and American and Japan etc. until they are little better off than places people would consider emigrating from. Maybe much higher tax rates for more developed countries that can then be used to develop infrastructure and healthcare in underdeveloped countries to increase worker productivity there. But the people in the developed countries that would hold all the cards in making this system wouldn’t be thrilled with this. This is almost a frivolous conversation now, but perhaps in a distant and more enlightened future we can all work in peace and harmony and love for the best of all mankind. Maybe.
powerpenguin 87 - if you are really in favor of higher taxes feel free to pay higher taxes. You don’t need to wait for others. Just go ahead and send your money into the IRS
Lots of homeless in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York. There, along with cities in Australia, UK, Germany, Canada, rents and housing has skyrocketed. Many young people can never hope to buy their own home, and must move back to mom and dad. But not to worry. As TE recommended, increased migration should solve that problem.
TE has addressed these issues in the past.
@@JK-gu3tl What is their solution exactly?
@@jannikthorsen3531 Deregulation of housing. Sidenote, I've heard Japanese handles housing much better (zoning is dealt with on national level).
When all borders are removed, the world's poor will flock to the world's richest countries. While this may indeed boost these country's economies, the result will be a massive brain drain from the Third World, something it might never be able to overcome. The potential for migration is huge for developed countries, but disastrous for developing ones.
1. No one in the video is advocating for removing all borders
2. The video covers the "brain drain" at 5:50
It's disastrous for developed nations too 😒☹️. I don't see anything about bordeless countries though but it's disastrous. It's not like developed nations only have skilled or highly educated workers
@@holycrapchris the economist said it would be beneficial to remove all borders?
Migration does not improve a country's economy. I got the statistics to prove it, Douglas murray in his book Strange Death Of Europe shows it is false, the economists is wrong, and is likely being biased.
Rich and middle income should counteract this by immigrating into poorer countries, because in those countries their money is worth more and they can easily open a business with less competition than developed economy
thank you for the explanation mr. rothchildsteinberg
Diogo Marques 😂that sir, gets a thumbs up.
Isnt this argument 20 years too late? We were never asked if we wanted migration. It was brought upon us. Wealth is not the end all be all of human existence as we have learned. People need places and culture in order to be people. Mass migration erodes these fundamental elements of human existence.
Local people will lose their jobs.
Local people often doesn't want the jobs that immigrants take.
Who do the hard farmworks, who do the cleaning at hotels and such, who drives the taxis... Could go on, but..
Economically, maybe; politically, a nightmare
tutioalucard you mean “socially”, not “politically” bud.
*Will make the 1% wealthier
If the immigration makes countries richer, why do Americans, Brits and French etc feel they are getting poorer?
bloddybarbarian because of the rich. And the rich want you to blame migrants.
bloddybarbarian One reason I can think of is stagnant wages which hasn’t kept pace with cost of living. Another is income inequality. Another is high cost of housing
It would make the 1% richer.
It would make everyone who are invested in the economy richer* the more invested you are the richer you becomes
What if they take advantage of wellfare or benefits and decide not to get a job
You saying that all of them are like this? Hahahaha dumb
Josh Moody one in 100 do that and other 99 offsets that by a huge margin.
They don’t.
Josh is mostly right...but many will get jobs that pay in cash and thus they deny the system its due. It is a big problem where I live.
They cant
in developed europe with its welfare staes third world/europe migration is defakto enslaving and exploiting the locals. corporations attract migrants exploit them 10 years and then force locals to pay welfare for them
So in France, a migrant unemployment rate of nearly 20% (8:39) and no-go zones (+ cars burning every night) makes France richer ? really ??
The problem of France is socialism.
France No, but it makes the Richer people Richer because they can pay less to the Poor immigrants to clean their mansions in their all white neighborhoods.
Yes it does. You just need to change your mindset, and start enjoying the muslim and african diversity enrichment. :D
There are so many falacies in this idea lol it's obvious it's just a political tool
At what cost?
everything
Absolutely disgusting
Short sighted nonsense that doesn't even acknowledge the difficulties or the time it would realistically take to implement a policy like this. I'm sure the economist knows this so I'm not sure why this video was even made unless it was just so the channel had something to upload to maintain a regular schedule. This video is a waste of time. This topic needs at least a few hours to introduce and years of discussion on top of that to fully flesh out, not 10 minutes.
..& reduces wages for the benefit of Big Business. I mean, its simple ECONOMICS
Barely
Aside from the economic benefits, in my opinion freedom of movement across a variety of regions, like in the European single market, is one of the greatest modern achievements for individual liberty.
At the expense of local economies that become low wage economics and increase social problems.
you most probably don't live in Europe
@@r3dp1ll
Germany
@@artuselias problem is we also have to accept social dumping. The european project is ill and will crash in the near future. It is not serving the people but only a small elite of financiers and indutry captains. Now I'm also glad to have freedom of movement.
@Matthew M
What do you mean?
I sincerely believe that migration enriches a country both economically and culturally.
This theory already tried on Qatar, and some how the world scream about slavery,
Ivo Purwanto that's why workers rights is so important
What the Economist fails to mention is that not everything in life is economy. There are other aspects of life. Culture is one example.
I would say more diversity in culture would improve your life
Michael Gugliotta “Diversity in culture” sound like an oxymoron to me. “Culture :the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time. : a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc. “
not to mention that forcing europeans to save africans is racist and antieuropean, why shouldn't they use their ressources for their own children why feed and educate migrants from africa, so africans can get away with that, people should not be forced to tell how they spend their ressources?
Arthur Heidt The main concern of economists is “growth”. By that they mean “economic growth” but in capitalist system this is indirectly based on human population growth. That is the primary reason the globalists are pushing for migration, immigration, and trade all around the world. For they the humanitarian crises and the resulting refugees, the asylum laws are opportunities to bring in the cheap labor needed to “grow” the economies. The problem is the planet earth is not growing. Native populations do not want their cultures to be replaced by incoming aliens. In the case of Europeans they don’t want to have black or brown grand children. And that is NOT racism but the globalists will use every tool available to get their “growth”.
@@BalkanMode earth has enough ressources for growth, and interplanetary civilisation and space mining, the problem are the people, who don't want to join the system and obey the banks and the billionaires.
I smell propaganda
Migration, in particular illegal immigration, *does not benefit* the citizens
on the lower-rungs of the socio-economic ladder of the host countries!
These people compete for jobs with the newcomers and social service
welfare benefits are increased by use by the newcomers. And, the
migration *increases the taxes on the middle classes*
*So, for about half or more of the citizens of the host country*
*migration is not beneficial.*
The countries that export people have high-birthrates and
the wealth of the countries is monopolized by the elite.
There are many false information in your comment.
First, immigration, whether or not it is illegal or legal increases demand as these immigrants have to consume to live. This increase in demand ought companies to produce more, which increases their productivity and eventually stimulates economic growth.
This popular belief making a link between unemployment and immigration is completly unsubstantiated. In fact, in every country there are a certain quantity of "un-manned jobs" ("emplois non-pourvus" in french) unoccupied by country's citizens because the wages are considered too low and work conditions too bad. Consequently, immigrants most of the time use to occupy these jobs which is beneficial to host countries.
(Source : Jean Tirole, Economics Nobel Prize 2014 "The economy of commons")
Do not try to hide your fears and your hate of immigrants behind false economical arguments.
"wages are considered too low and work conditions too bad" The worse the job, the better the pay and conditions should be.
If people don't apply for jobs it is because the remuneration is inadequate. Migrants ensure that employers never have to offer decent remuneration.
In Australia, wages have been stagnant because of our massive migrant intake. Meanwhile the price of housing goes through the roof because there are too many people trying to fit into the cities.
Migration has gone practically nothing for Australia as far as innovation and progress is concerned. Australia is ranked down at 87 for Economic complexity, meaning very little is produced or invented there that is sold in the international market. It is ranked alongside third world nations. If Australia is inviting the best and brightest then what are they doing exactly?
"Based on a range of estimates" this is perhaps the biggest BS story I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot. If you increase the supply of labor, wages go down,
If only the entire discipline of labour economics could be reduced to the elementary analysis of a demand-supply diagram from Economics 101.
@Black Ally to Protect White Men's Rights Quite the username you've got there. Open borders means if you're not in jail, you should be allowed to work peacefully wherever you please without needing government permission.
@Black Ally to Protect White Men's Rights I agree. I push for open borders globally! They do need share their wealth with the rest of the world cause like, its not their's. The earth belongs to everyone. You should get your fair cut!
Migration no, immigration yes. Pritect your borders, people illegally crossing whether nice or mean are freeloading
More migration more money for the wealthy and millionars
Immigration make some richer, and some poorer
I haven't watched the video yet but i think that it might make countries i bit poor cause when immigrants they travel they usually go to the big cities which have a high cost of living and high taxs which can create homeless people but it really matter how prepared the person is
Please note that while the majority of this post talks about all forms of migration and immigration as if they were the same things, qualifiers do appear. It says that migration must be regulated. It says that regulated immigration systems like Australia's which only permits immigration of immigrants with necessary skills and assimilation prospects are necessary. The real question is why the authors found it necessary to fill it up with statements that appeal to those who believe no form of migration should be limited.
BTW, when people in the US propose a points-based system for immigration, they are accused of being racists. The current president of the US, yes, that one, has proposed that the US copy Australia and Canada's systems.
health damage for immigrants that do dangerous and hazardous jobs do not compensate the money they make.
They interviewed two "experts." Sure, all those remittances are great for the developing countries, but increasing demand by unrestricted immigrating drives domestic prices up. The Economist should know this.
The Economist just did a commercial for unlimited immigration and Globalism. Not one mention of the problems that often come with immigration. Unbalanced at best.
We are more than 7 billion, soon we will be 8. Not everything is about getting a bigger gdp. What about culture? What about all the drawbacks of mass immigration? You should definitely consider dropping your capitalistic point of view to see the bigger picture. We're way too many on our small planet and it's entirely due to immigration from poorer contries, we cannot keep going this way, it's irresponsible.
Hmm what about supply and demand? If there are more immigrants willing to work versus jobs available wouldn’t this make salaries drop not spike? Populations tend to be much higher in developing nations compared to developed countries. Just a thought not my opinion. I have nothing against immigrants coming to my country to contribute and better themselves.
They also build business which employ people
Imagine all africans moving to US & EU
Sayan guria yes that's what the left wing liberals wants to happen..
imagine all the indians moving to UK and US
Its will lead to civil war, for sure
Listen to my advice before scrolling down the comments: do not go there I repeat do not go there
They're not as bad as I expected. Even though I support immigration, the video had basically zero substance so it's not hard for people to argue against it
What are you afraid of? The economists arguments being shreded to pieces, and their globalist ideology being exposed for what it is?
The economic explanation makes sense. But it cant cater the issue of soceital concerns. People will always have sentiments. And the economic model disregard such central factor.
Since people can not choose when and where to be born, or in which kind of family, it only seems to me quite natural for people to have a desire to move from poor country to the rich, both in economic sense and resource sense. Only that those born to be lucky doesn't want to share this luck with those born to be unlucky. After all nothing is truly owned by anybody, why would people want to share the burden but not the luck?
Life isn't fair, work to fix your own country.
@@Agtsmirnoffas if it's easy
It brings wealth if they work, but not if they protest, break things or become criminals, and get subsidised by the other citizens' taxes
@@Vdji5889gjh Well if you commit a crime you get arrested that's how it works :/
@@Vdji5889gjh No no I can discuss more. I'm sure there are native citizens that commit crimes, as well as immigrants that commit those. I said that if a migrant comes to a country, and works and doesn't get subsidised by the state, it sure brings wealth to the country, but if the migrant comes and gets money from public funds, or becomes a criminal, it sure doesn't bring wealth. You don't think so?
@@Vdji5889gjh Oh no I didn't mean that for sure
@@Vdji5889gjh I guess xD you're a US migrant?
7:16 'Natives tend to move into higher skilled, higher paying work.'
Riiiiight. Why is that? Is that because they can no longer afford to live on the wages offered for those jobs because of price elasticity of supply? Also, that's only the natives who have the capacity to move into higher paying jobs. What about all the others who fall out of the labour market altogether, get stuck in the benefit cycle and end up being called lazy, work shy etc? 'The jobs that people don't want.' Nevermind why they no longer want those jobs. How can someone trying to raise a family in the country in question compete with someone who is sending money back to a country where that same wage is worth 3 or 4 times the amount? How many jobs have gone to minimum wage from being well paid in the last 40 years?
Who is getting rich from this race to the bottom while governments subsidise companies to pay wages which are impossible to live on through benefits to full time workers? Who?
Well you can raise your family in country with cheaper living cost too, that would reduce your expense.
@@jonathanjeffrymulyana4390
Yes, but those countries also have lower wages and often no / less benefits so it would make no difference or make people worse off.
Additionally, any language barrier would mean that those emigrating will go into lower skilled jobs than they are qualified to do in their own country, which is part of the existing problem in larger economies anyway.
It's also incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for people who are working class, working a full time job and on benefits, just to make ends meet, to get the money together for something like emigration.
Ok, let's suppose you're a citizen of a 1rst world country and have started a family. You and your partner were not able to afford a nanny to help with your children, so now one of you has to leave their job. But now, with lower wages, caused by the entrance of low-skilled immigrant workers who don't have much bargain power, you are able to afford a nanny service and does not have to leave work to take care of your children. The family member who had to stay home can now focus entirely on their career, thus progressing and gradually getting higher incomes. Therefore, the native mother/father might have started in a low-skilled position and didn't have to freeze their professional/academic progress because of paternity, gradually progressing. That's an illustrated example of how natives can move into higher-skilled positions due to immigration. There's actually a very interesting study, I think it's by Patricia Perez, that correlates the insertion of the American women in the job market in the 70's and immigration.
disagree
And the environment? In environmental terms, there is not a country on the planet that needs more people. The ignorance of the commentators of the environmental consequences of what they propose is staggering.
People are dumb, what this is saying is simple. A farm worker from Ghana farming in Ghana makes $2 because of lack of machinery he struggles to feed his family But when he migrates to a machanised farm in USA he makes $20 now he sends $10 back to his family in Ghana and still increases productivity in USA. It's essentially a win win for everybody and it helps the world as a whole, more food and more money. As Simple as that.
DublinGreen 👍🏻
GDP includes tax money spent on infrastructure made necessary by population increase, most of which is immigration.
Tax the incumbent population to pay for stuff for the benefit of newly arrived foreigners, and you can brag about 'economic growth'.
It’s all about money !!
Poverty exist because of colonialism
British alone is responsible for most of the poverty
Poverty exist because of lack of education.
Please educate yourself before spewing lies.
Post independence mismanagement, corruption, and nationalisation were responsible.
A bunch of ahistorical BS nonsense.
LOL It depends on how you define richer, as well as for whom. Illegal immigration to the area in which I reside, coupled with tax breaks for seniors, have resulted in essentially a generation of homeowners being forced out of their homes here...who can afford to pay property and school taxes when only a part of the population pays into the system, and another part of the system does nothing but take, take, take?? I am sorry, but I do not earn enough to support my family as well as a half-dozen immigrants whose meager earnings are under the table (cash) and do not pay the system what they truly owe.
It's suddenly that a lot of local people believe that migrants are a problem when they hadn't seen the benefits of it, not just for their countries but also for the migrants. I reckon that the cultural phenomena of not being empathetic with the other ones had led governments (as in the USA) to create and force policies against migration when this policy should regulate it and assure a safe migration. The United States had been benefiting from migrants that are there, increasing their economy and leading to better job opportunities for the local people. Perhaps if Americans were all ears and eyes to see how migrants apport innovation for American companies, they would be less distrustful about migration. People don't move abroad because they enjoy it, they do because need to work and in that way help their families back home.
Mass migration heavily empoverished host populations, slowed down innovation and decreased birthrates even further. There is no benefit for the host population nor the populations from which these migrants come from. The only ones who benefit are the migrants themselves and the rich. They also are an existencial threat to the host cultures, nations and ethnic groups.
Put measures in place to combat local inequality and to enshrine local cultural values where migrants desire to go. Maybe then the tone of the debate can improve.
It's easy to see how it would benefit migrant workers. It's easy to see how increased labour migration can make things better in the migrant country of origin. It is easy to see how businesses can be advantaged from lower labour cost. Which is basically all I hear in this video.
But what is written between the lines is that suddenly the top 10% would have access to dramatically lower cost labour. And the bottom 50% will suddenly find themselves with vastly fewer job opportunities. Increased world wealth - Increased inequality in host nations. Win? Really?
And then there are many... Many questions around cultural rights. It might not bother those living high up in glass towers, they are interested mostly in the profits and their next holiday destination after all, but it bothers the citizen on the street. They WILL oppose lax migration rules for as long as it is not made clear that their interests, as CITIZENS, are held firmly above the interests of GUESTS.
Migrant work policy should not leave room for increase future taxation on the local population - To take care of guests. The benefit to the migrant worker should be in fair compensation as well as humane and dignified treatment. If anything it should, by rights, lower taxation on the local population, possibly even increase local social spending including such measures as universal basic income to combat increased local inequality and unemployment. If tax policy is fair then there would after all be much greater corporate tax income with increased access to migrant workers.
not sure why nobody commented, but Joe Black, you are the man sir, and right on the money.
Except that didn't happen. There are vast global labor shortages. Here in the US, there are great paying jobs that are not being filled. That will not be filled by current US citizens.
@@ChasingLosses not at all true
@kamachpoo2089 every single large construction project in your city is undermanned. And I have no idea where you live, nor do I care. It's a globally universal fact. We are headed down the path of it being an epidemic.
Sure. Picking strawberries in the UK pays 8x more than picking strawberries in Ghana. Ghanian is enriched. But how are UK citizens improved ? UK and European citizens are harmed by demographic replacement.
Money money money
none of those oil rich arabs nation (UAE,Qatar,Saudi,Kuwait) taking large ammount of immigrants from surrounding area just saying
You didn't understand anything here . Its not about refugees Qatar or UAE have the highest immigrants
90% of these countries population are immigrants. What are you talking about?
No such thing as rich if there is no poor
not true. In Nordic counties most people are rich
@@khary30 as compared to what? no such thing as "the most valuable painting" if there is no other valued painting
Yes great idea! Just not to Israel oy vey
Swedenistan has left the chat....
WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS INCREASED WEALTH? TRILLIONS TO THE 0.001%, CENTS TO THE REST OF US
What about to the 100s of millions of people that would be moving? Are they part of the 0.001% as well? Maybe if people based their opinions on what their brains told them rather than their personal emotions and frustrations we could make the world a better place for everyone?
@@merryn9000 you mean the ones who are exploited, underpaid, taken advantage of, threatened, and who inadvertently take a job away from a local?
I love how big corporations and the wealthy stash their cash in The Bahamas or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes yet people blame immigrant's for everything. Migration should be based on a point base system base on how well they speak the language and having a degree. For example some countries lack nurses or electricians some countries have too many of them and some countries need them. Now people in the countries they're migrating to the native population should invest in property and rent property and then sell it to immigrants at the end they could benefit. Some countries need migration because they're not having kids at all how could they get health-care, social security you need young people to pay taxes and contribute to the state. Countries could put some restriction on accessing welfare programs for 10-20 years or a higher tax bracket for them for a while. They're ways in which everyone can benefit from it. Just look at Forbes 400 a great deal of those corporations have founders or have CEOs who are kids of migrants or they're migrants themselves.
Liberals consider your policies racist.
@@weirdshibainu
Yeah, immigration reform is always a 'dog whistle' to the Left.
Not wanting hordes of people who don't know the language and lack marketable job skills = racism.
@@AroundTheBest if you actually believe that, then you need look up the definition of racism
@@weirdshibainu SMH
It doesn’t. It is always a net negative.
Its bother me that the italian dude not moving his hand while talking.. you sure he italian?
Countries v CORPORATIONS. Shut the gates. NOW.
Naive comment. Companies are what a country is made up of.
@@firstspar - No they are not. They are corporate seafaring SHIPS. Operating on the seas of COMMERCE. They are profiteering PIRATES who employ and sell their wares to the people. It doesn't help that our 'governments' are listed as CORPORATIONS too. Also our Councils, Courts, Police, political parties and other OFFICES. PARLIAMENT is also listed as a CORP(se)ORATION. They have now moved onto the land. They are dead entities that need putting back in their place. Even the people are rendered as CORPORATIONS at birth. Without their knowledge or Consent. LEGALLY binding us all to the world of BANKING and COMMERCE. There is no Statute of Limitations re FRAUD. The people and the land are NOT CORPORATIONS. They have the right to not CONTRACT in with these LEGAL entities nor any other associated LEGAL PERSONALITIES. No land based people-oriented creations like government should be LEGAL entities.
*_Human Assets will outweigh Financial Assets in the long term. A historical fact._*
The irony of misperception with use of illustration to indicate immigrants of the data chart itself ..... yikes.
Too little info in these videos.
Title should be “How migration concentrates wealth.”
These migrants can move into and live in Robert Guest's white picket fence neighborhood.
It’s actually so sad that the comments section is full of superficial people. And this video explains this complex issue pretty well.
First of all, I’ll talk about my fellow Romanians. Ever since they started migrating more and more, Romania has lost one important element but it has also gained a few more. Yes, we lost labor and there are tons of available jobs at the moment in Romania. However, Romanians sent home about 3 billion euro in 2018. With this amount of money, locals improve their education and they eventually contribute to a higher family wealth. (These locals with better education will obviously contribute to the economy at some point). Also, Romanians abroad have brought home something extremely important: the western mentality. This has helped Romania develop and nowadays Romanians seem to understand better the importance of voting and they also speak out louder when their rights aren’t respected. Romania has also improved its ties with the home countries of the Romanian diaspora and these countries are also willing to invest here. The tourism has almost boomed lately as the Romanian diaspora shows the world what our country really looks like. 😜
I know, you will talk about how the fact that we lose a looot of people is terrifying, but I believe that this wave of emigration will in the end fade away as the locals understand the western mentality better and they also open up. Things are changing more and more in Romania and I expect my country to be developed in the next few decades, or let’s say in a century. We just need to get rid of the corruption. I know, you cannot fully get rid of it, but reducing it is essential. Corruption in Romania literally drains the local budget. Yes, a century or some decades might seem a lot, but this emigration wave happened in other countries too and guess what...they are mostly some economic powerhouses.
Also don’t come here with xenophobic lame comments. Don’t forget that at some point your ancestors were migrants too...AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PURE RACE. Do a DNA test!!! 🤦🏻♂️
The video is fine, but it could have been more holistic tbh
Controlled immigration is ok but a free for all open the door policy is bad for the indigenous population and the immigrants , I equate immigration to promoting a soccer team from the 4th division straight to the premier league what happens they can't compete and get clobbered unless you have a points system, Every country is entitled to have a unique cultural identity without it been under threat of mass immigration that will replace it , Islam is a threat to secular societies as it is not only a religion but also a complete way of life that encompasses laws on how the country should be run under sharia law , yes immigration has its benefits when controlled but there are also very clear social and political dangers that can not be ignored..
But the racist govt of some countries donwant other to earn bread in there homeland 😢😶😶
Would educating and providing equipment to people in poorer countries not have the same effect? And it would avoid the problems of terrorism and lack of social cohesion that have flowed from free movement. Migration would then be from rich to poor, not the other way around. The best example here, Beth, says she was "deeply unhappy", then "very happy", so is not decisive. When it is said that people "overestimate" the number of migrants, that is partly because people think in ethnic terms and do not exclude the next generations.
This would be the sane solution. Unfortunately this policy does not benefit the corporations who want to depress wages through massmigration.
That was what would happen, but developed nation don't like this because that meant more economic growth and industries shifting into developing country. Most develop nation want to keep their manufacturing job, so instead of the capital moving away, workers is the one that should be moving into the country
@@exelenxius5832 There are different interest groups in the developed countries. They tend to keep the intellectual capital (patents, etc) but outsource actual manufacturing. Dyson in the UK for example.
Absolutely true, but it makes rich people richer and the country by taxing them. Middle class impact I doubt. I think strict migration policy will regulate and recruite people in need otherwise oversupply create Salary degrading. Developing countries also facing a massive brain draining which also effect the country.
pure propaganda
Nice propaganda
Where are your arguments?
@@l0wrid3r88 There are plenty of arguments in the rest of the comments of this video thread.
I would say you should correct one word in the title which is 'the world'.
I don't think all the world get richer by accepting migrants. Rather, the developed where migrants work only will be developing over and over.
It seems that the developed just try to lower labor cost, which is the primary reason they accept migrants. And the migrants would be satisfied with their salaries because those are even higher compared to ones in their own country.
Once migrants earn money, they generally transfer them to their country. And then the family seems to live with a pretty great condition. The thing is, that's it. There is no more development in their country.
Unless the developed support the developing and underdeveloped like Grant Aid or FDI(kinda different one, though), the circumstance in the world will stay still continuously.
Haven't you heard,they also said by working there they (migrants) have a chance to send money to their families and those can use that for education, medical treatment etc.....
The arguments of this video give me a strange feeling as if listening to a corporate businessman talking GDP, produtivity increase, more money, more money, more work, more production by immigrants which is clear that is just telling one side of story. The planet is just one and different people live in different places and with different culture, tradition and history and unique way to survive and share common values. Money and GDP have nothing to do with happiness and freedom and meaning of life.
The goal of every soverign state ever exsisted on earth have been, and will be maximizing production for more consumption, this making people happier. This is not so different from current GDP-maximizing economists.
There were, and will not be any country which actually think money has nothing to do with happiness. If you think economical growth does not make people happy, you have never been poor.
@@kkp01140 You are a liar. This has never been the main goal for a host of civilizations throughout history. You are simply projecting liberal utilitarian ideology backwards on to history.
Jannik Thorsen Every civilization ever exsisted, exsisting, will exsist tried and will try to maximize its productivity.
Society with higher productivity always yielded more goods for people, therefore sustained higher population, thus empowering ruler’s position and increasing the chance of whole civilization’s survival. Tell me if there’s one civilzation which did not pursue this. Even if there were one, they fell to the civilzation which did pursue higher productivity.
Technology might change the world, but not the people.
@@kkp01140 As I said, it is just one side of story in which you are giving all importance. The life is much more than just what you say.
As per your opinion that probably I never experienced poor, let me tell you I was born in Japan soon after second world war ended and there was nothing in there, all burned. But even so I was very happy and I had the best phase of my life. I became a successful man, a director of major multinational corporation, traveled to many many cities of many many countries and now I am retired. But, what I miss the most is my country of Japan, my poor city of my poor but happy days of my childhood. We need much more than prosperity, money, and using people to produz and produz as just a mean for someone else. But I respect your opinion as much as mine too. Bye.
South Africans need to see this
El caso es que . Es bueno para los países sub-desarrollados . Pero los países desarrollados no le gusta la idea de que otros países crezcan también ....
I am totally agree with the economist
No conflict of interest here at all! 🙃
sunny gill i is also am derrr
@@vooteimer1234 🤣