EPTthere is potential for refugees to change euro economy for the better by introducing dynamism and growth, possibly by challenging the fairly stale euro service sector in food and such. the number of syrian refugees isnt even large enough to confine this discussion on them. im more interested in further inflow of migrants from places like turkey.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 342
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is potential for refugees to change euro economy for the better by introducing dynamism and growth, possibly by challenging the fairly stale euro service sector in food and such. the number of syrian refugees isnt even large enough to confine this discussion on them. im more interested in further inflow of migrants from places like turkey. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 02 2015 03:07 Silvanel wrote: Well PiS is doing precisly what they promised and precisly what majority of people want them to do (at least in regards of foreign policy). Democracy at its finest. Democracy also entails certain values, including minority protection, human rights, due process and so on. If the "will of the people" where the only democratic indicator Russia would be more democratic than the United States. Democracy isn't equivalent to "the people are pleased with the dear leader". | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 02 2015 03:20 oneofthem wrote: the refugee and economy question is something i dont have settled opinion on. i see disagreement between whitedog and kwisatch productively discussed with an examination of how ethnic ghettos formed in france, a historical example of failed economic and social integration. if same dynamic replicates then it may lead to bad outcomes. there is potential for refugees to change euro economy for the better by introducing dynamism and growth, possibly by challenging the fairly stale euro service sector in food and such. the number of syrian refugees isnt even large enough to confine this discussion on them. im more interested in further inflow of migrants from places like turkey Yeah and those ghettos appeared mainly because the politicians in powers at the time were liberals who thought immigration was a beautiful and easy process that didn't need any kind of policies, and thus they let the market dispatch immigrants in France, coincidently pushing all migrants in the same cheap neighborhoods (while forcing out all the natives that were living within those poor neighborhoods). This actually destroyed French politics, made us forgot some of our core values (like our refusal of the idea of race, or our centuries old inclusive and humanist idea of nationality) and twisted our political debate from class struggle to race and identity politics. But don't worry, they create value (and who cares if they suffer discrimination, insults and unemployment). | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: I never talked about you at all, I talked about the politics. For exemple, Germany is all out for helping the refugee, but at the same time preventing any change in the economic policies, change that would be needed to actually welcome the refugee in a good manner. "I never talked about you at all" is another outright lie, considering the relevant sentence of yours that I addressed was "You also pass the fact that there are already tons of people in poverty / unemployment in our societies, and the idea that europe should offer something (anything) to refugees and not those people is very dubious". Unless you meant to write "Germany" and mistakenly wrote "You" instead, you were talking about me. And like I said, I did not "pass the fact that there are already tons of people in poverty/unemployment in our societies", and I explicitly rejected the idea that we should only help refugees and not those already in need. On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: This whole vision is based around stupidity and arrogance. The arrogance that Europe is a place of heaven that have "something to offer" (an economic term, befitting your liberal vision of the world) As usual and as I pointed out in your original post, you caricature the opposing view. I did not describe Europe as "a place of heaven". I argued that it was still positive for refugees to be able to arrive and settle (sometimes temporarily, because many would like to eventually go back to their home countries) in Europe when they're fleeing a civil war. And like I said, to argue that we should not welcome refugees at all because we don't welcome them as optimally as we could/should is ridiculous. Finally, I love how you disingenuously try to attack me personally for using the term "offer", when reading how I used it in context (in response to the point maartendq was making, since he used the term) clearly exposes the vacuity of your accusation. But keep railing about "my liberal vision of the world" -- you're incapable of understanding basic arguments, and you clearly don't have the slightest idea about how I view the world. On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: and the stupidity that the immigrants will be instantly productive without accepting any complex argument. France is actually a good exemple, putting aside any kind of cultural or language difficulties to integrate, the simple increase of the active population in France (due to our positive natality) has not gave us any kind of advantage in contrast to Germany, who is in the exact opposite situation. It is really difficult to integrate a population, whatever the history of that population may be, and make it a part of society, that participate actively and have a rôle within that society. The youth in France suffer from a lack of social integration, despite the fact that the youth cost a lot to our society (through the education) and that they are actually born in our society. The reasons for that are many, but the fact are pretty clear : for exemple, Louis Chauvel showed that, in France, the unemployment rate of the youth that enter on the labor market is always higher than 15 % since 1990 (and hysteresis of the unemployment rate), whatever the economic conjoncture, which means that there are social/institutional reasons as to why young people in France have difficulties to access the labor market. The idea that immigrants, on the other side, would instantly (and necessarily) be a positive addition in our weakened societies, while our own youth is unable to do that, is ludicrous. Another good example of you caricaturing opposing arguments to the point where you're not even arguing against what was actually said but against a strawman that you fabricated in your mind. Where exactly am I supposed to have argued that "immigrants will be instantly productive"? Let's review what I actually wrote, to highlight again the dishonesty and systematic misrepresentation that can be found in your posts: The reason many economists are in favor of welcoming refugees and making it easier for them to work and contribute [...] is instead rooted in solid research showing that despite possible initial costs for the state, refugees tend to benefit the economies of the places they arrive in, and have a limited impact on wages and unemployment -- an impact which can in fact actually be positive. I already cited earlier in this thread the longitudinal research conducted in Denmark which showed that non-EU immigration "did not increase the probably of unemployment of natives" in the regions under study, and there are plenty of similar examples that can be found to reject the idea that refugees are necessarily the kind of burden you're alluding to, and can instead very well contribute to improving the economic situation in the places they reach. [...] research shows that the impact on levels of unemployment is not straightforward one way or another on the short-term but is still relatively limited, while on the middle- and long-terms the impact is often positive, especially if the right policies are enacted to favor social and economic integration. As you can see, I clearly did not make the kind of hyperbolic and overly positive statements that you're addressing, but offered instead a nuanced appraisal of the effect of immigration on aspects of the economy, based on the scientific research on the subject. If you want to rail against people who have a completely disconnected from reality and utterly idealistic view of immigration be my guest, but I fail to see how that's relevant to my posts. Also, where am I supposed to have failed to accept "complex arguments"? The reality of this discussion is the exact opposite -- I explicitly said I agreed with some of your points but disputed your analysis of various aspects of the economic impact of the arrival of refugees, based on the research I mentioned, and you immediately had a knee-jerk reaction which led you right back to building strawmans and resorting to ad personams. On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: The studies people like you always quote in this regards are based on a long term evaluation of the micreconomic effect of one migrant wave on the economy - effect that are mostly positive in the long run (obviously, because men produce value). It's actually irrelevant in regard to the situation we are facing now, which is both a different migrant wave (history destroy the idea of economic "laws" which is the underlying idea you defend, wheither you understand it or not, which means that different migrant wave in different economic context have different results) and a situation that ask us to face short term problems (one of the reason why Keynes is definitly more pertinent now than in 1990). First, you are again attributing to me positions that I do not hold, since I did not "defend" -- directly or indirectly -- the idea of "economic laws" that would apply regardless of context. It's pretty comical that you're accusing me of this, considering you're actually the one who has been invoking automatic negative economic effects of migration. In reality, I have precisely been arguing that the arguments you've been making are based on assumptions that have been proven to be false in a number of cases (and not necessarily for one single migrant wave), and that research has shown the kind of impacts you've been referring to to be usually minimal, and sometimes even positive -- including in some cases on the short-term (although there are also plenty of examples of wages being very temporarily negatively affected). In short, pre-emptively railing against the welcoming of refugees by claiming they'll necessarily have a substantially negative impact on unemployment and wages is both short-sighted and to a considerable extent ill-founded (with regards to the degrees of magnitude we're talking about). On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: I also stressed out the political effect of welcoming migrants without actually doing some huge universal policies that would destroy the distinction between migrants and autochtones. I agree that there can be such negative political effects (rise of the far-right etc.). I never argued otherwise. No, no, don't stop there! Let's quote other parts of the report: The weight of the evidence suggests that the impact of unskilled immigration on the relative employment and wages of the native unskilled population is minimal.[emphasis mine] There is some evidence to suggest that immigration makes the labour market more flexible, effectively reducing the equilibrium unemployment rate in the long run. In particular, high rates of immigration into Spain have helped the Spanish economy to reduce overall unemployment substantially without inflationary consequences. [emphasis mine] Again, I'm not trying to paint the arrival of refugees as an economic miracle that will instantly improve everything. There can be an initial small negative impact on the wages and unemployment levels of some segments of the population, but that impact tends to be minimal and can sometimes not be negative at all. And on the middle- to long-terms, the impact tends to be positive. In other words, there is no strong economic argument to argue that it is a bad idea to welcome refugees, and we should be focusing instead on advocating the enacting of policies that will favor their social and economic integration. On December 02 2015 01:59 WhiteDog wrote: You have a very economical vision of mankind because your core argument is that those refugee will instantly create value, as suggested by the study you pointed. The pityful part about it is that I'm pretty sure you view yourself as a social warrior defending humanist value, while in fact all you do is refusing to discuss a complex matter and resuming it to one sentence, misunderstanding even the liberal ideology that actually support your claims. That is not my "core argument" at all, as I've repeatedly explained -- it's pretty mind-blowing that you're incapable of understanding basic sentences. It's like you have this black and white vision of the world where anyone who disagrees with you on something is instantly distorted into your evil phantasms, which prevent you from actually addressing what is being said. I have been discussing this complex matter in a nuanced way, and I've stated I agree with you on some points. You, on the other hand, keep using hyperbole, misrepresenting positions, and attacking strawmen. Like I said, I join your call to improve how we deal with both refugees and the poor/unemployed/less-favored in our societies, but some of your assumptions on the economic impact of refugees are faulty/exaggerated, and it is still a better idea to welcome refugees and keep pushing to further improve policies than not welcome them at all. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
- My argument (since the beginning might I add) was that the short term effect are negative (even if you undermine those negative effect out of hypocrisy - 1% increase in active population creating 0.4 to 0.6 % increase in unemployment is not "small" but whatever) and that those short term economic effect can create huge negative political effect, creating a dissenssion between autochtones and migrants, favoring the creation of ghettos, preventing even the kids of the migrants to feel french and feel integrated in the society. - Your point is about A MIGRANT WAVE (one) while we, in France, are not facing this situation at all, but rather a constant flow of migrants since forty years (200 000 to 250 000 a year - and thus A SUCCESSION of SHORT TERM EFFECTS). - You are also putting aside the historical effect : your argument is that migrants everywhere and always have no negative effect on unemployment and wage in the long run (to you it's a law), while in fact a fine description would show you that the effect of migration wave is heavily different from one historical period to another (sometime having even short term positive effect, sometime having long term negative effect). Everything suggest that the situation we are in right now is clearly not beneficial to the social integration of migrants (and this, you seem to be completly oblivious to). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the economic theory is too abstract to be predictive because they are conditional on specific political and social situations. it's far too reflexive to reduce this discussion into 'pro vs anti refugees' | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2015 03:45 oneofthem wrote: whitedog presented some legitimate concerns. Yes, those concerns are legitimate, which is why I addressed them. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 02 2015 03:46 kwizach wrote: Yes, those concerns are legitimate, which is why I addressed them. well in my view europe is not at the present equipped to integrate migrants in large numbers, even the already existing ones. largely due to stagnant economic dynamism. what policies do you suggest to resolve this. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Where is this monstrous immigration people are speaking of and who says that 'economic dynamism' isn't a product of migration instead of a prerequisite? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the u.s. example, say new york city, is visibly different from europe just by the amount of immigrant business startups everywhere, the more mobile labor market etc. the european model is a consensus and balance of labor and capital, with a lot of protection for existing business and industry. the population stagnation is a reflection of this stale equilibrium. europe's rising energy cost is also a snobbish snub of small business and households. as far as large number of migrants, i refer you to unemployment figures among existing migrant population, particularly low skill/education. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
There is also no unresolvable problem between the welfare state/secure labor market and an immigration based society. Most cities are still affordable to live in despite huge migration numbers, Berlin for example . It's a question whether administration manages to get the conditions right. If you obviously do not manage to solve the challenges that come up immigration then you're going to have problems, but that's true for anything. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bWgcZFN.jpg) | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
But I still think the current course of action is wrong, taking in huge numbers of refugees every year is neither the answer to the world's problems, nor a solution to demographic problems and in fact a threat to the stability of our country in the long run, because the risk of failed integration and anti-immigrant tension is very high. On December 02 2015 04:26 Nyxisto wrote: large numbers is a relative term. 500 million people live in the Eurozone. A net migration of two million per year isn't much. It's the uneven distribution that is straining some countries. The US population grew by 30% over the last twenty years, Europe's population has barely grown over the same time. US population has more than doubled since the 50's, Europe's population grew by about 20%. Where is this monstrous immigration people are speaking of and who says that 'economic dynamism' isn't a product of migration instead of a prerequisite? Central Europe is way more densely populated than the USA. A population of 80 million is more than enough for Germany. Migrants won't choose dying towns in Eastern Germany as destination, so they can't solve that problem of ours. Current numbers of immigrants in Germany are far from ideal. At the current rate Germany would have to integrate over 1 million people a year. Even with all the voluntary work presently going on (which is huge) it's not enough. And the current migrant wave is just the tip of the iceberg, there are several million Afghan refugees in Iran, several million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and plenty of Iraqi, Iranian and African refugees in-between, and all of them heard Germany is the perfect destination. More importantly, mass migration is not a solution to the world's problems. We have 7.3 billion people on this planet and the number is rising. We cannot solve poverty, hunger, wars and the rest of the world problems by transplanting people into rich, stable countries, the migrants will always be a small fortunate minority. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2015 03:40 WhiteDog wrote: Everytime I argue with you I'm baffled at your inability to understand even a single argument. Your argument boils down to : a migrant wave, in the long run, have no negative effect on unemployment (it even might have a positive effect). No. From my first post, I've mentioned the effects on the short-, middle- and long-terms. They are mixed and minimal on the short-term, and tend to be positive on the middle- and short-term. All three dimensions are important to take into account. I also explicitly stated in my initial post that I was also reacting to other posts of yours throughout the thread, and you did not simply address short-term unemployment in them. On December 02 2015 03:40 WhiteDog wrote: - My argument (since the beginning might I add) was that the short term effect are negative (even if you undermine those negative effect out of hypocrisy - 1% increase in active population creating 0.4 to 0.6 % increase in unemployment is not "small" but whatever) and that those short term economic effect can create huge negative political effect, creating a dissenssion between autochtones and migrants, favoring the creation of ghettos, preventing even the kids of the migrants to feel french and feel integrated in the society. I addressed your argument with regards to the short-term effects. I did not dispute the potential negative social and political effects you alluded to, but those are the result of a number of factors and cannot be reduced to the short-term employment impact of immigration. Again, this short-term impact is minimal and not even always negative, in particular for the "native" population since just-arrived low-skilled immigrants more directly compete with other recently arrived low-skilled immigrants than with natives (see for example Ottaviano and Peri (2012), "Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages", Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 152-197). Plenty of studies have shown that the impact is often minimal or non-existent, including on the short-term. Situations vary, but you can't simply assume that welcoming refugees will have a substantial negative effect on wages and unemployment, even only on the short-term. On December 02 2015 03:40 WhiteDog wrote: - Your point is about A MIGRANT WAVE (one) while we, in France, are not facing this situation at all, but rather a constant flow of migrants since forty years (200 000 to 250 000 a year - and thus A SUCCESSION of SHORT TERM EFFECTS). No, my point is not about "a migrant wave (one)". It's impressive to witness how utterly incapable you are of not putting words in my mouth. On December 02 2015 03:40 WhiteDog wrote: - You are also putting aside the historical effect : your argument is that migrants everywhere and always have no negative effect on unemployment and wage in the long run (to you it's a law) while in fact a fine description would show you that the effect of migration wave is heavily different from one historical period to another (sometime having even short term positive effect, sometime having long term negative effect). No, that is not my argument. Learn to pay attention to what I'm saying. I said that research has shown that there tends to be a relatively positive effect on the middle- and long-terms, which obviously means that it depends on the context (political, economic, social...) -- something I said myself as well. I also explicitly rejected treating the effect as a law -- you, on the other hand, are treating the (possible) negative short-term effect as a law. You're both dishonest and hypocritical. On December 02 2015 03:40 WhiteDog wrote: Everything suggest that the situation we are in right now is clearly not beneficial to the social integration of migrants (and this, you seem to be completly oblivious to). Yes, I'm so oblivious to it that I explicitly acknowledged in my first post that there were several real obstacles to an optimal integration of refugees -- thanks for demonstrating how good you are at reading once again. One of the obstacles, though, is the myths and exaggerations propagated (in particular by the right and the far-right) on the impact of migrants on the unemployment and wages of natives, since they contribute to fueling defiance and hostility towards migrants. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 02 2015 05:29 Nyxisto wrote: Sure that's a problem, but even accepting the unemployment I'd rather have a growing city with a functioning economy than some constantly shrinking place in the middle of nowhere. Stopping immigration because it makes problems sounds like committing suicide because you're scared of dying. When you have lots of people from lots of places you get lots of different problems, there's nothing surprising about this but it's also not a knock-out argument against immigration that people make it out to be. Here is the core of the problem : Europe is basically forced to "accept the unemployment", disregarding all the possible negative effect the unemployment has on our society, while accepting an increase in its active population - through immigration but not only that through nativity itself. But, not only unemployment by itself is a plague for a society (and public finance), but over unemployment specifically targetted at some populations is very dangerous for the social cohesion within a society. France should know better, considered the pityful way it handled the migration coming from the maghreb and other parts of Africa for the last what 50 years, to a point that some of their kids, watching their fathers facing years of ethnical segregation and discrimination, now hate France. kizwach everytime I argue with you, you basically end up in saying things that do not contredict any of my point. All you have is a possibility of if and a maybe, and some side notes presented as rebutals. Sure, I can't, you can't, exactly predict the exact effect of migration on european societies. Maybe (who knows) europe will be able to entirely process this migration wave and create wealth out of it (but considering our current situation, and our economic policy, I consider it to be a fable created by and for the fourestian socialists such as you, that still believe in politics, sure about their humanist values when it is in fact nothing more than arrogance, and that bore everyone to death in parties). All in all, what's the point ? Continue voting for the party of Light as you do, continue talking (but to people that actually care please) and finally continue to wonder why is it that the national front is winning all election while the studies you have, made by white dudes warm in their office, clearly shows that migration create absolutly no problem and is always beneficial (because the economic language is the custom right ?). Again, this short-term impact is minimal and not even always negative, in particular for the "native" population since just-arrived low-skilled immigrants more directly compete with other recently arrived low-skilled immigrants than with natives (see for example Ottaviano and Peri (2012), "Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages", Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 152-197). Plenty of studies have shown that the impact is often minimal or non-existent, including on the short-term. Situations vary, but you can't simply assume that welcoming refugees will have a substantial negative effect on wages and unemployment, even only on the short-term. From Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages (that you linked) The consensus emerging from the literature is that the first (macro) effect on average U.S. wages is negligible in the long run, as capital accumulates to restore the pre-migration capital-labor ratio. However, for fixed capital in the short run there can be a large depressing effect of immigration on wages. Most of the literature represents immigration as an increase in labor supply for a given capital stock (Borjas, 1995, 2003), and consequently finds a negative impact of immigration on average wages (in the short run) and a positive impact of immigration on the return to capital due to complementarities between the two factors. The recent debate, however, has focused on the effects of immigration on the relative wages of more and less educated U.S.-born workers. Some economists argue for a large, adverse impact on less educated workers (Borjas, 1994,1999, 2003, 2006; Borjas, Freeman and Katz, 1997), while others favor a smaller, possibly insignificant, effect (Butcher and Card, 1991; Card, 1990; Card, 2001; Friedberg 2001; Lewis, 2005; National Research Council,1997). The size and significance of the estimated relative wage effects from immigration remain controversial, and possibly depend at least in part on the use of local versus national data. Everything you present as fact is basically a perspective to me. They're not observation (due to the complexity of the economic reality) but rather a particular perspective on empirical data, a perspective tailored by models with specific hypothesis, like a preference for the long term (typical of neoclassical economy) and a possibility of substitution between labor and capital. Note that the piece you linked is based around a work on US data, putting aside the fact (as I pointed out) that the institutions of the labor market (most notably the level of protection of workers in a country) weight heavily on the effect of immigration on the labor market (and since europe is way more protective than the US... well). And here is what is written in the conclusion of the paper you linked : Those estimates are partial in that they assume a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital and therefore are not informative of the actual overall effects of immigration on wages Thank god, we now know for sure the effect of immigration on wages. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote: kizwach everytime I argue with you, you basically end up in saying things that do not contredict any of my point. All you have is a possibility of if and a maybe, and some side notes presented as rebutals. Sure, I can't, you can't, exactly predict the exact effect of migration on european societies. Maybe (who knows) europe will be able to entirely process this migration wave and create wealth out of it (but considering our current situation, and our economic policy, I consider it to be a fable created by and for the fourestian socialists such as you, that still believe in politics, sure about their humanist values when it is in fact nothing more than arrogance, and that bore everyone to death in parties). All in all, what's the point ? No, that's not true. My original post was very much straightforward: I disputed your portrayal of the posters supporting the welcoming of refugees, and I pointed out the inaccuracies/exaggerations/limits of the links you've been drawing in this thread between immigration and the labor market -- all the while agreeing with some of your points regarding obstacles that do exist and make it harder for immigrants to integrate socially and economically. The issue is that as soon as you see me replying to you, you have this knee-jerk reaction of completely strawmanning and distorting the hell out of my argument (going as far as attributing to me positions that were the exact opposite of what I was saying, as I showed earlier in the discussion). If you were more interested in discussing ideas instead of going for personal attacks, perhaps you'd be able to discuss these issues more productively. There is nothing arrogant about pushing to improve how we deal with immigration and about defending the idea that it is not "dumb" to be welcoming refugees who are fleeing from civil war. And I have no idea what a "fourestian socialist" is supposed to be, but you probably don't either considering you have no idea whatsoever of the extent of my disagreements with Caroline Fourest on many topics. As usual, you base your accusations on thin air. On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote: Continue voting for the party of Light as you do, continue talking (but to people that actually care please) and finally continue to wonder why is it that the national front is winning all election while the studies you have, made by white dudes warm in their office, clearly shows that migration create absolutly no problem and is always beneficial (because the economic language is the custom right ?). The beginning of your paragraph was encouraging, but I see you're back to distorting my point and the aforementioned studies, which obviously do not say that "migration create [sic] absolutly [sic] no problem and is always beneficial". Classic WhiteDog. On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote: From Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages (that you linked) Yes, I know, I read it, which is why I quoted it to support the point I was making with regards to "just-arrived low-skilled immigrants more directly compet[ing] with other recently arrived low-skilled immigrants than with natives". About short-term effects on wages/unemployment being sometimes virtually non-existent, I refer you to the other two studies I linked in the same post, as well as others I've provided in the thread. You can take out snippets of the standard warnings not to rush to conclusions found in all scientific studies all you want, their conclusions are still there for you to bang your head against. On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote: Everything you present as fact is basically a perspective to me. They're not observation (due to the complexity of the economic reality) but rather a particular perspective on empirical data, a perspective tailored by models with specific hypothesis, like a preference for the long term (typical of neoclassical economy) and a possibility of substitution between labor and capital. Except I provided you with studies analyzing short-term effects as well. And I didn't argue that these were the ultimate and unchallengeable truth, I argued that it was worth looking at what scientific research says on the topic to explain that your discourse on the links between immigration and unemployment/wages did not accurately portray what the science says on the issue. But I suppose it's more comfortable to go with your "gut feeling" on the issue than have to face a complex social reality which challenges simplistic discourses painting immigration as a "bad thing" for native employment. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Okay you actually convinced me, I'll vote François Hollande in 2017.... Hahahauhauhauhauh | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: So basically you nitpick what is actually okay with your own narrative in various studies that all have different models, disregarding everything that goes against your vision [...] No, I don't. On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: [...] or even the fact that even the paper you link basically argue that it gives no actual clue on the relationship between migration and wages since it is highly hypothetical and based on hypothesis that anybody could discuss. [kwizach] Reference to what WhiteDog is talking about: No, it doesn't. First of all, since using google is apparently very hard for you, you actually quoted a 2006 working paper version of the article, instead of the updated and revised article that was published in 2012 and that I referred to (how one can be so incompetent at even such basic tasks is beyond me). Second, the sentence you quoted and which mentioned assuming "a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital" actually referred to other studies in the literature which made that assumption and not to the study itself, which precisely adopted a different approach. In other words, you skimmed the article, didn't understand it, looked for a sentence that would allow you to object superficially, and utterly -- and comically -- failed by picking the worst possible sentence to support your point, but the perfect sentence to underline that you had no clue of what you were quoting. Thanks for the good laugh, you're doing an amazing job of defeating yourself (talk about wrongly nitpicking to support your narrative -- what a priceless way to broadcast your hypocrisy). On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Okay you actually convinced me, I'll vote François Hollande in 2017.... Hahahauhauhauhauh I'm not sure how this discussion was supposed to be about the 2017 elections -- in case you need it spelled out for you, it was about exposing your inaccurate claims about the links between immigration and unemployment & wages, which I've done repeatedly. Your claims just happen to go hand-in-hand with the right/far-right's rhetoric about immigrants "taking our jobz" -- sorry reality is a little more complex and doesn't agree with your simplistic fear-mongering. | ||
| ||
