Thanks for the link—I think the economists surveyed were not unanimous in saying that it’s a slam dunk win, and as I wrote ‘might’ and ‘big, if true’ - also note that I’m citing a link from the very left-wing think tank associated with the German Green party.
Also see that while the case for immigration boosting the economy in the long-run is strong based on economic theory, there might still be upfront cost that could have bad effect such as displacing traditional aid:
It could also be that, a la David Autor’s China shock literature, while the average economic effects of migration are positive some low-skilled domestic workers might have increased competition, which can cause populism. For instance, immigration can predict Brexit votes.
Again: big, if true and there should be more analysis. The main lesson here is if you’re dealing with trillion dollar numbers, it might be very important.
Thanks for the answer. The problem is that this is likely pointing in the wrong direction. Immigration has by itself quite large benefits for immigrants and almost all studies of the impact of immigration find positive or no effect for locals. From “Good economics for hard times” by Duflo and Barnejee there is only one case where locals ended up worse off: during the URRS, Hungarian workers were allowed to work but not live in East Germany, forcing them to spend their money at home.
Overall, it is well known that open border situations would probably boost worldwide GDP by at least 50%, possibly 100%. I sincerely think that criticising Germany for this policy requires being only worried about very short term costs, which seems more like an ideological response than a reasonable choice.
Thanks for the link—I think the economists surveyed were not unanimous in saying that it’s a slam dunk win, and as I wrote ‘might’ and ‘big, if true’ - also note that I’m citing a link from the very left-wing think tank associated with the German Green party.
Also see that while the case for immigration boosting the economy in the long-run is strong based on economic theory, there might still be upfront cost that could have bad effect such as displacing traditional aid:
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/using-aid-to-finance-the-refugee-crisis-a-worrying-trend
It could also be that, a la David Autor’s China shock literature, while the average economic effects of migration are positive some low-skilled domestic workers might have increased competition, which can cause populism. For instance, immigration can predict Brexit votes.
Again: big, if true and there should be more analysis. The main lesson here is if you’re dealing with trillion dollar numbers, it might be very important.
Thanks for the answer. The problem is that this is likely pointing in the wrong direction. Immigration has by itself quite large benefits for immigrants and almost all studies of the impact of immigration find positive or no effect for locals. From “Good economics for hard times” by Duflo and Barnejee there is only one case where locals ended up worse off: during the URRS, Hungarian workers were allowed to work but not live in East Germany, forcing them to spend their money at home. Overall, it is well known that open border situations would probably boost worldwide GDP by at least 50%, possibly 100%. I sincerely think that criticising Germany for this policy requires being only worried about very short term costs, which seems more like an ideological response than a reasonable choice.