Labor is a commodity. This is one of the fundamental assumptions of modern economic theory. Free trade is the basis for efficient operation of the economy. This is another such assumption.
The conclusion is that in order to grow the common prosperity should enable everyone to trade their own work. Anywhere, with anyone, anytime. Let the computer scientist of Polish, if you want, works in Silicon Valley, a builder from Bulgaria, if you will, let him work in Poland. Overall, everyone will pay off. We all get rich. Why?
Because of the two economic regulation: the division of labor and comparative advantage. The first point is that the people sharing the work according to their scope of expertise, produce more. The second is that it pays to them to choose this specialization, which are relatively najwydajniejsi. Suppose that Kowalski and Nowak depending on the needs or gather strawberries or catch fish. Even if Smith is both efficient work, is – to quote comparative advantage – and so it pays to share tasks with Nowak! For if he is able at the same time to catch more fish than gather strawberries, it is focusing solely on fishing (and eg. Buying as not strawberries from Nowak), will produce more of these fish. Similarly, if less efficient at catching fish Nowak abandon this activity and will focus on strawberries, also they will produce more of them. Whole fish produced and strawberries grow, what and Kowalski and Nowak gain.
The existence of a process, which increases production by simply rearrange it, who does what, is one of the greatest discoveries economy. And as the division of labor works the better, the more freedom of movement of workers, one would assume that the economists would call for the abolition of state borders for the movement of people. And yet – something them from the back.
Sowell does not want Mexicans
One of the hardest conspicuous position in my economic bookcase is the book “Basic economics” (translated into Polish as “Economics for everyone”). Bloated, over 600-page tome in a white jacket explains in a simple way how the capitalist economy, where does wealth and why socialism leads to a shortage of toilet paper. If someone is not completely understood my summary description of the division of labor and comparative advantage, I refer precisely to this book. It is still mathematically certain, but still very difficult and non-intuitive theory. – Thousands of important and intelligent people did not understand her actions, even if they be explained – once noted economist Paul Samuelson.
O “Basic economics” I remember, but not because of the accessible description of these issues and because of its author – Thomas Sowell. The 86-year-old economist is already, as befits one of the brightest students of Milton Friedman, exemplary counter display of free-market doctrine, which for half a century ruled by the science of economics. It is also an American “self-made man”, the star of the university, which is derived from the lower classes “black” America and confident about the possibility of upward social mobility through hard work supporter of the philosophy of “every man for himself kneecap starches.”
Amazingly, Sowell is not a fan of free migration between countries, although it is they allow the promotion on a global scale. The thoughts of economist, as in a lens, focuses most of fears of immigrants present in modern Western societies. And how much Sowell position in the said book is moderate, so much in his current journalism is almost unequivocally negative. It is conceded Sowell, if not for immigrants, there would develop a number of countries, including the United States, but times have changed. Skorośmy already a prosperity built, then let us defend ourselves from those who can it undermine.
anti-immigrant rhetoric of Americans on the target takes a common Mexican “illegals,” or people who live and work in US without permits. According to Sowell reduces the wages of Americans, not only in industry, but even in agriculture. – Each farmer will employ cheaper employee. In a situation where we have an unlimited supply of cheap labor from Mexico, farmers will never have to raise salaries. And let us not say that Americans are not interested in this kind of work. After all, they had practiced for generations. At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, to satisfy its every kind – says Sowell.
However, in its arguments it refers not only to the question of purely economic. It takes the view that the excessive number of immigrants is dangerous due to the mixing of alien cultures. – Reasoning that leads to recognize the benefits of free trade, doctrinaire libertarian also apply to the free movement of persons. But the people as opposed to goods also bring with them their culture. When the import of culture, will be among them those that do not themselves have created the climate for the enrichment and development. Americans have the right to decide whether they want such unlimited imports of cultures from other countries. The purpose of immigration policy is to serve the national interest of the country – notes Sowell, starting with shoes economist, and going into the role of a sociologist, anthropologist and political scientist. Is he right? Does economic theory in the case of the issue of migration should lose importance in favor of the will of the people? It is not economic nationalism?
Of course, not all economists present such a position.
Empiria side theory
Those who argue that far more open or even completely open immigration policy is a great idea, they get strong evidence – and not just theoretical. From year to year the number of tests and anti-immigrant arguments rozwiewających phobias.
The most common argument against immigrants that is already used by Sowell: lower wages and take jobs indigenous peoples. This argument appeared very often in the UK before brexitowym referendum and was directed mainly against the Poles.
About how much it is not justified, convincing even Alex Nowrasteh, an expert on immigration policy think tank Cato Institute. In his opinion, in the light of empirical research it is not at all certain that – as suggested by Sowell – to reduce the influx of Mexican immigrants will increase the salaries of workers in agriculture. – It is more likely that it will start to shrink when the agricultural sector, which requires the most work of human hands. It will become simply too expensive and farmers will grow only those plants which crops can be harvested mechanically. It is also possible that some abandon farming completely and consumers will be cheaper to import food from abroad. This means that jobs in agriculture will be moved just abroad – explains economist, and this logic applies to all industries that employ unskilled immigrants.
In fact, this outsourcing of work and production, or competition from other markets, exerts the greatest pressure on it to the local market lower salaries or cut employment and invest in capital, ie. machines and robots, not people. Therefore, if not the immigrants who are willing to compete even with hipertanią labor from abroad, some sectors in developed economies disappear for good. There is also the phenomenon of taking jobs by immigrants lokalsom, because if not for the influx, many jobs would never arose.
Nowrasteh criticizes so consistently Sowell the argument that “the Americans they worked on the land for generations. ” – That ever ridden on horseback, it does not mean that the government should reduce the current supply of cars. Sowell ignores its own achievements in the economy – says Nowrasteh, clearly surprised by the low quality of reasoning, his older colleague.
Is Sowell does not know, for example, research by Giovanni Peri of the University of California on immigration to California? If this state of the United States was a separate state in the statistics widniałby at the forefront of the country’s most welcoming to immigrants in the world. For instance, in 2004. It worked in California as much as 30 percent. foreign labor from the area throughout the United States.
Peri analyzed the economic history of California from 1960 to just 2004. discovering that immigration … it stimulates labor demand and wage growth among ” original “state residents. Doing other work and have other skills than they do immigrants actually increased their average productivity in the economy! Ponti similar study conducted in Denmark in relation to immigration from outside the European Union. Results? Similar.
Or is it just about legal immigrants, who, by definition, meet the requirements of the local labor law, are taxed, subject to the provisions of the minimum wage? No. The study, “Effects of reducing the number of illegal immigrants” from 2014. Peri with Andrim Chassamboullim proves that getting rid of illegal immigrants is also not a good idea. Weakens because markets are benefiting from cheap labor, reduces profits and consequently reduces investments in new places as well for local workers. – The policy of deportation, repatriation, sharp border controls reduces not only illegal, but overall immigration by increasing the cost of job search for immigrants – notice additional researchers.
The beneficial effect of immigrants on the economy of the host country confirmed study conducted by economists on the basis of OECD statistics. It’s not just about wages but about the overall economic development. Immigrants not only cause him much support. For example, with immigrants in 2007-2009 British GDP grew by an additional 0.5 percent. (Data for www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk /).
Culture über alles?
But what of the subject Sowell that immigration to import unwanted cultures that could jeopardize the free society? If you focus on individual anecdotes and examples, it will be easy here Sowell support. Crime, particularly terrorism can be here crowning argument. Except that based on emotion, not data. Of course, a causal link between immigration and terrorism probably exists, but whether it is so important, how to think? And it is related to the scale of migration, not the kind? On this evidence does not exist.
Moreover, forgetting that the sources of terrorism are different, and often he has his separate and completely unrelated to the cause of immigrants. IRA, for example, in attacks aimed at the separation of Northern Ireland from Britain murdered approx. 1800 people. This, incidentally, more than Islamic terrorists in total in all the organized attacks in Europe. The fight against terrorism should not therefore be a struggle with immigrants, because it is poorly diagnosed.
Alex Nowrasteh and his four colleagues published in 2014. Work with the question in the title: “Does immigration affect institutions? “. To answer that, we put together data about the influx of immigrants to the individual countries of their indices of economic freedom, which evaluates, among others, the quality of state administration or legislation.
“Our research shows that migration can have positive influence on state institutions, so as to encourage greater freedom” – wrote in the summary of the study authors.
If, therefore, free-market economists do not have to fear that immigrants will push the state to track enemy of freedom, it can economists inclined more socially should fear that immigrants using socjalu generated by the indigenous peoples, will undermine public support for the welfare state? Such fears dispelled, in turn, David Brady and Ryan Finnigan working with 2014. Published in the “American Sociological Review.” On the contrary, the researchers conclude, there is evidence to believe that immigration such behavior even encourages.
Objections to take immigration sometimes philosophical character. For example: “Did appears on someone else’s territory without invitation or permission not call intrusion or burglary and penalizes it? With respect to state the appearance of immigrants it is the intrusion. ” Such attitudes can be found among some libertarians.
But this is not the right approach to the problem – because as far as actually to enter the private grounds you can be considered a burglary, it immigrants tend to have a real invitation to the country of their wanting to recruit employers from wanting to rent their homes and apartments from the owners finally willing to sell them your products traders. If it were otherwise, against Mexicans zamykałyby the door of the American Wal-Mart, and before Ukrainians door Polish-Portuguese Ladybugs.
Slowly to order
People everyday life demonstrate its acceptance of immigrants. Even if you declare zealously anti-immigrant views, it does not support them with their portfolios. It is one of the truly humanistic feature of capitalism: where there is money or profit vision, disappear unfounded prejudice against races and strangers. Worse, that empty views can also demonstrate no cost at the ballot box.
Restrictions that the idea of open borders puts the political system, is aware of prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, one of the most respected economists in the United States today. Cowen believes that increasing the influx of immigrants to the United States should be gradual and not through radical steps. – Let us apply the idea of open borders in Cyprus, Taiwan or Israel or Switzerland and see how far you can go with that – ironically Cowen on his widely read blog MarginalRevolution.com. And he adds: – Big countries cope with the influx of people better than small, but whether there are such large countries to cope with the completely open borders? In my opinion, their lawyers do proimigracyjnej on disservice. The vision of a mass influx of people just scares people who have entered the nature of risk avoidance. I am glad that the US had open borders before, but now the world’s mobility is too large. Allowing us 500 million poor people would kill the hen that lays the golden eggs – explains his attitude Cowen, sounding like Sowell, or as if just in the case of immigration, its own economic science was not for him important.
Where do these attitudes? Well, as Cowen most economists are pragmatists – they remain, even if they understand the benefits of open borders. Instead, therefore, to promote unconditional support for open borders, will develop technocratic policy of “optimizing” immigration so that immigrants were welcome by the society better. For textbook examples of such proposals include the idea of Gary Becker to the residence (in different variants: the citizenship) in the country emigrant had to pay a certain fee. I mean, if it so depends on.
Other economists suggest that immigration policy premiowała educated, because they can bring even more value to the local economy, and still others want to turn off the function discriminatory by draw immigrants. Is a wealth of ideas, but of course none of them does not solve all the problems of immigration. Especially those related to mass migrations caused by non-economic factors, such as war. All the inhabitants of the European Union know exactly what question.
Any idea is worth consideration. However, each time in discussions about immigration policy should be aware of one thing: we are talking here about people who for some reason left the places where im wrong. Communism generally not allowed to emigrate. Under capitalism, the problems do not exist. But if modern society began to sharply defend against immigration effect for those who want to leave the territory would be the same as under communism: compulsorily have to stay where they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment