This is a smart argument. I’ve found liberals in favor of open borders insist that wages aren’t dragged down but immigrants themselves who came prior struggle to find work with a relentless downward pressure on wages in the informal economy in particular; it’s a race to the bottom for workers in industries like construction and farming, anything involving manual labor. I used to be against more immigration of the educated but I see the logic in your argument. I was against it mostly because we aren’t in need of more white collar workers, but immigrants also start companies that create jobs, so I’m ambivalent. I also saw a piece in the Free Press about how blacks in Chicago are angry at the local govt for taking in unlimited immigrants who are a drain on resources that are already scarce for existing black and Latino communities, about which I see a deafening silence, because that is happening in most if not every sanctuary city. Liberal concern for the downtrodden is starting to feel like a luxury belief.
Thank you! I'm sympathetic to arguments against immigration of the immigrants if one is particularly concerned about social mobility opportunities for the pre-existing population... that may also relate to luxury beliefs that disregard the interests of the marginalised in a society. I'm unsure how I'd weigh that up. Anyhow, when it comes to basing immigration off having prior means, I think it's still notable that this will have far from 100% correlation with the skills of the immigrants who meet certain wealth requirements, so I think it remains a somewhat distinct concern to that of the effects of skilled/educated immigration.
Interesting read. I have one little objection. I do not follow how a lower reservation utility leads to a decrease in the force of labour. You say employers "get away with" paying less for the same effort - I would argue they are paying less for the same output, for no one really pays for effort. So if the immigrants are willing to do *the same work* for less money, how is that a decrease in the force of labour? Now if these people are providing a lesses level of work for lesser pay, that's a different story - but presumably employer could have already hired lousier workers for less pay before the immigration event occurred.
Furthermore, if an employer can hire someone to do the same job for less pay, wouldn't that reduce the price of their product, all else being equal and assuming competition pressure? This would therefore increase the real purchasing power of wages.
Finally, a brief comment on the housing issues you outline. It is my impression may immigrants into the UK, particularly from South Asia or Arabic countries, have a culture of sharing housing with a large number of family members - something that we would perhaps classify as cramped but does not appear to them as such. This may or may not have some implications for housing, or rather housing demand per capita.
"One little objection"... three paragraphs later finishes ;)
Re. reservation utility and labour supply - if I'm more willing not to work (i.e., higher reservation utility), then I need more money to convince me to work. That's a decrease in supply as a function of wages. And vice versa - so immigrants with lower reservation utility increase the labour supply (and thus reduce real wages). I may have expressed it poorly in my post, but this is what I meant to say.
Re. the change in purchasing power of wages - this is true... to an extent. But wages are still only ever a fraction of the total costs, and so a reduction in wages will not create an equivalent proportional reduction in prices even in a highly competitive market. Important to this model is that, in reality, many markets are not highly competitive. Most importantly for this issue, labour markets are especially difficult. The hidden point of my argument is that when both labour supply and demand are suppressed due to imperfections in the labour market, and then labour supply alone is increased, wages go down to give way for increasing excess profits.
Re. your housing comment. Nice point for many immigrant communities. But it still increases the number of households in a way that raised fertility rates take a long time to translate to. It will increase the total demand for housing, even if it does reduce the per capita demand for housing space.
This is a smart argument. I’ve found liberals in favor of open borders insist that wages aren’t dragged down but immigrants themselves who came prior struggle to find work with a relentless downward pressure on wages in the informal economy in particular; it’s a race to the bottom for workers in industries like construction and farming, anything involving manual labor. I used to be against more immigration of the educated but I see the logic in your argument. I was against it mostly because we aren’t in need of more white collar workers, but immigrants also start companies that create jobs, so I’m ambivalent. I also saw a piece in the Free Press about how blacks in Chicago are angry at the local govt for taking in unlimited immigrants who are a drain on resources that are already scarce for existing black and Latino communities, about which I see a deafening silence, because that is happening in most if not every sanctuary city. Liberal concern for the downtrodden is starting to feel like a luxury belief.
Thank you! I'm sympathetic to arguments against immigration of the immigrants if one is particularly concerned about social mobility opportunities for the pre-existing population... that may also relate to luxury beliefs that disregard the interests of the marginalised in a society. I'm unsure how I'd weigh that up. Anyhow, when it comes to basing immigration off having prior means, I think it's still notable that this will have far from 100% correlation with the skills of the immigrants who meet certain wealth requirements, so I think it remains a somewhat distinct concern to that of the effects of skilled/educated immigration.
Interesting read. I have one little objection. I do not follow how a lower reservation utility leads to a decrease in the force of labour. You say employers "get away with" paying less for the same effort - I would argue they are paying less for the same output, for no one really pays for effort. So if the immigrants are willing to do *the same work* for less money, how is that a decrease in the force of labour? Now if these people are providing a lesses level of work for lesser pay, that's a different story - but presumably employer could have already hired lousier workers for less pay before the immigration event occurred.
Furthermore, if an employer can hire someone to do the same job for less pay, wouldn't that reduce the price of their product, all else being equal and assuming competition pressure? This would therefore increase the real purchasing power of wages.
Finally, a brief comment on the housing issues you outline. It is my impression may immigrants into the UK, particularly from South Asia or Arabic countries, have a culture of sharing housing with a large number of family members - something that we would perhaps classify as cramped but does not appear to them as such. This may or may not have some implications for housing, or rather housing demand per capita.
"One little objection"... three paragraphs later finishes ;)
Re. reservation utility and labour supply - if I'm more willing not to work (i.e., higher reservation utility), then I need more money to convince me to work. That's a decrease in supply as a function of wages. And vice versa - so immigrants with lower reservation utility increase the labour supply (and thus reduce real wages). I may have expressed it poorly in my post, but this is what I meant to say.
Re. the change in purchasing power of wages - this is true... to an extent. But wages are still only ever a fraction of the total costs, and so a reduction in wages will not create an equivalent proportional reduction in prices even in a highly competitive market. Important to this model is that, in reality, many markets are not highly competitive. Most importantly for this issue, labour markets are especially difficult. The hidden point of my argument is that when both labour supply and demand are suppressed due to imperfections in the labour market, and then labour supply alone is increased, wages go down to give way for increasing excess profits.
Re. your housing comment. Nice point for many immigrant communities. But it still increases the number of households in a way that raised fertility rates take a long time to translate to. It will increase the total demand for housing, even if it does reduce the per capita demand for housing space.