Extant fears that immigration will lead to a breakdown of civil society into racial enclaves are also accompanied by the more economically tangible worries that immigrants are taking away jobs from native workers. Europe has traditionally struggled with much higher unemployment rates than the U.S., and this, according to Kathleen Newland of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, DC, is the biggest difference in how Europe and America look at immigration: “America protects its welfare system from immigrants but leaves it labor market open, while the EU protects its labor markets and leaves its welfare system open.” This distinction seems more contrived than real. There are just as many protests over immigrants’ share of domestic jobs in the U.S. as there are complaints that immigrants are exploiting the generous welfare system in Europe. In either case, the developed countries ought to be aware that immigrants take highly unappealing jobs, and Europe, with its aging population, cannot do without immigrants, who often arrive when they are young and healthy. As for financial burdens, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors estimated in 2002 that immigrants in fact generate benefits of up to $14 billion a year.
The Trojan Horse: the EU and Turkey
This is just the surface, however. Dig even a little deeper and the issue becomes even more clouded. The argument that immigrants take jobs away from natives or depress natives’ wages, though often overblown, holds some truth for unskilled labor. Over time, American incomes have become less equally distributed, and the wages of the least skilled may even have fallen in real terms. Immigrants are an easy target for blame as recent arrivals tend to be disproportionately less skilled: the 2000 census shows that immigrants make up a little over 10% of America’s labor force but close to 30% of workers without high-school education.
On the other hand, a more theoretical framework has yielded the suggestion that immigrant labor actually protects native workers from the business cycle by allowing employers to hire immigrants when the economy is in the upswing and lay them off when the economy sours[1]. In any case, an influx of unskilled labor should at least increase the marginal return of capital, so employers might be more tempted to open new factories or purchase new machinery, which would require more workers to run and so restore wages to the original level.
If this analysis has only managed to further obscure the debate over the ultimate lowers of immigration, there is no need to panic -- the author is similarly flummoxed. Perhaps ambiguity should be the ultimate take-away of this discussion, but even though economists have not reached a consensus, the population at large has. Regardless of the sentiments that underlie wealthy nations' reluctance to accept more immigrants, the reality -- that global immigration is on the rise -- compels a response.
0 comments:
Post a Comment