and well beyond the trivialisation of problems by the government:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/how-much-migration
AUGUST 08, 2016
FEATURES: ECONOMY
How Much Migration?
by Brian Easton
Free movement of labour is often described as one of the four
fundamental economic freedoms. Putting it into practice is
somewhat more difficult.
To make the intentions of this column clear, I am generally in favour
of migration. I am a descendant of immigrants and live in a country in
which virtually everyone admits to a migration heritage and which has
one of the highest proportions of foreign-born in the world. I am also
very aware that future migration will dramatically change the country
I love, especially by the Asian inflow. It will happen and the country
will benefit from it.
For migrants bring with them a vigour and vitality which a small
conservative country with a tendency to stasis needs. I am astonished
at the impact of the thousand odd Jewish refugees in the 1930s and
1940s. I am delighted at the contribution of our Pasifika people. And,
if I may characterise it as a 'migration' albeit an internal one, we
are a richer community for the Maori move from country to town.
Immigrants can also ease the pressures of population aging which the
country faces. Our rest homes seems largely staffed by them; we may
not judge these carers skilled, but the ones I have met are so endowed
with aroha.
However, accepting all these gains, this column is about the
appropriate rate of migration.
First, the economics. In summary, the research shows that immigrants
tend to give a boost to net demand in the short run and net supply
(and hence sustainable economic growth) in the long run. That is
because initially they put more pressure on resources (especially
housing and infrastructure) than they add to them. But once their
contribution to investing is sufficient, the effect subsides. It is
strong enough for past Australian governments to increase assisted
migration when the economy was depressed in order to help get an
expansion underway.
Now you know one reason why this government is so keen on a migratory
inflow. It is contributing to economic expansion (although that need
not mean that real per capita incomes for everyone are rising).
The government will add that it also increases our supply of skills.
True, but allow me a grumble. Relying on migrants for required skills
is cheaper than training up New Zealanders. The consequence is that we
have too many unskilled and under-skilled locals and inadequate
training institutions. When the Christchurch rebuild was first talked
about it was recognised that we would be short of builders. Rather
than putting training schemes into place, it was decided to import
workers with the required skills. Five years later we are still short
of builders and no doubt we will again go offshore to provide them.
So, yes, there can be economic downsides to migration, but locals
generally benefit. Curiously, the evidence does not say that local
workers always suffer job losses or depressed wages. The explanation
requires a theory a bit more sophisticated than the obvious Economics
101; in any case faced with a contradiction between 101 theory, which
says it will happen, and actuality, that on the whole it does not,
which should you adopt?
Why then the antagonism to migration? It occurs not just here but
throughout the world, evident in the Brexit referendum, distress on
the European continent and from many Trump followers.
The above discussion, like much of the public debate, has framed the immigration issue in economic terms. It says nothing about the
cultural impact. The sociological literature I have read on the topic
is not very helpful. There are numerous fascinating studies of
immigrant impacts on localities, but I have not read any comprehensive
overall (society wide) studies like those that exist on the economic
impacts.
My second paragraph summarised the micro-studies but at the end of the
day I have little idea about the rate at which a society can absorb
migrants culturally. That is the nub of where the strains are.
Undoubtedly there will be tensions when the migrants first arrive, but
how long before things settle down? How do the locals adapt to the
challenges the newcomers pose and adopt some of what they have to
offer? What are the critical mechanisms? (Anecdotally, intermarriage
seems to be important.)
I was struck that regional outcomes in the British Brexit referendum
do not seem to have been affected by the level of migrants but that a
higher vote for Brexit seems to have been affected by recent increases
in the level of migrants in the locality. (here*) That suggests the
Brits do adjust to migrants but it takes time for them to adapt from a
low level to a higher one. Like us?
The abandonment of free labour mobility is likely to be a key element
of any deal Britain does with the EU. I shan't be surprised if the EU
moderates the principle of unlimited freedom of movement too. You can
see related struggles in the US between dealing with illegal
immigrants and not encouraging more of them.
What about New Zealand? There is an economic case for moderating the
current inflow of immigrants especially as the high levels are putting
pressure on us to borrow offshore. Cannot we be more self-sufficient
in supplying skills; 'more' not 'totally' of course. That would mean
building up our internal training programs by no means a bad thing
for New Zealanders with unrealised potential. The fetish for
encouraging rich migrants probably needs to be restrained. The capital
they bring with them is not nearly as valuable as the rhetoric says it
is.
But we also need to think more about the cultural impact of the
migrants. We should not be saying 'no' to those who are culturally
different; all immigrants are!
The governmentıs decision for a modest increase in our refugee numbers
was wise, given that the facilities can only be increased slowly. I
should like to see a further increase in the quota three years on when
the reception facilities can be extended again.
Could not localities be more supportive to arriving immigrants? Our
local authorities could learn from the more welcoming Canadian
practices. Perhaps the points system which determines who may be let
in could incorporate a reward for those who go to the areas with the
best welcomers.
This column is not an anti-migrant tract. Rather it is an attempt to
encourage a dialogue which steers between xenophobia and a free market
view that only the impact of migrants on the economy matters.
*
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21702228-areas-lots-migrants-voted-mainly-remain-or-did-they-explaining-brexit-vote
(and there's one comment as I send this, also interesting)
It is a shame that our media cannot find it worth the cost to
commission thoughtful articles at this level - butthen much of
NAtional seem to find Radio Live intellectually challenging . . .
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)