How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future

[^_^ 5,021]

Few things will affect our future more than migration. A new book provides one of the best analyses of its costs and benefits

May 26th 2011

Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future. By Ian Goldin, Geoffrey Cameron and Meera Balarajan. Princeton University Press; 352 pages; $35 and £24.95.

When a Bangladeshi man goes to work on a construction site in the Middle East, his wife typically moves in with her husband’s family. Not all wives enjoy this. They sweat in a strange kitchen, take care of a bossy mother-in-law and see their husbands only for a few weeks each year. And although their husbands send home plenty of money, they often send it to their parents, not their wives. Migration creates losers as well as winners.

But the gains vastly outweigh the losses, as Ian Goldin, Geoffrey Cameron and Meera Balarajan make plain in their new book, “Exceptional People”. If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.

The same worker can earn 15 times as much if he or she moves from say, Yemen to the United States. The wage gap between rich and poor countries is far wider than it was a century ago, during the great age of migration from Europe to America. And the emotional costs of leaving home, though still hefty, are much lighter than they were. A 19th-century Russian emigrant might never see or speak to his family again. A 21st-century migrant can Skype them in the taxi from the airport.

Small wonder that the number of international migrants has doubled in the past quarter-century, to more than 200m. Increasing mobility combined with cheaper communications means that in the future, “the global community is becoming connected in a manner not experienced since our small-world evolutionary origins in Africa.” This is a fascinating point, which the authors could have pursued further than they do.

Overall, however, this is a book of bold ambitions ably fulfilled. Mr Goldin and his co-authors offer a history of migration, from man’s earliest wanderings in Africa to the present day. Thanks to modern techniques for decoding genetic evidence, far more is known today about the great movements of prehistory than was suspected even a decade ago. Genetic tests are now so cheap that Mr Goldin can draw us a map of how his own ancestors moved from east Africa 31,000 years ago, across Arabia and through Central Asia before swinging back into northern Europe.

After filling in the historical background, the authors give a rigorous but readable guide to the costs and benefits of modern migration. Poor countries may suffer when they lose their best brains to the West: 43% of Liberian doctors, for example, now work in North America. But the prospect of migrating spurs people in poor countries to acquire marketable skills. Some then decide not to migrate after all. Others spend several years abroad but then return home with new skills, new contacts and a pot of savings to invest. Overall, the brain drain actually helps poor countries. And of course, it benefits the migrants themselves. If it did not, they would not leave home.

Immigration is unpopular in rich countries because people overestimate its costs and underestimate its benefits. An influx of unskilled migrants may drag down the wages of unskilled natives, but this effect is “very small at most, and may be irrelevant”, according to a number of different studies. Migrants often create employment for natives. Indian entrepreneurs in San Francisco create new technology firms. Mexican nannies hold babies while American mothers go out to work. Migrants come when their services are wanted and stay away when they are not. Through the migrant grapevine, they know that jobs are drying up several months before government statisticians notice.

“Exceptional People” is packed with surprising insights. The authors knock down wild predictions that climate change will create 200m refugees by mid-century. Global warming may cause more frequent floods, but most flood victims go home when the waters recede. The authors cite as evidence the deluges that hit Mozambique in 2000 and America’s Gulf Coast in 2005. This reviewer, who saw both disasters up close, was struck by the sheer determination of the displaced to return.

The next big wave of migration will come from Africa. Today, most Africans are too poor to move far. A typical Congolese peasant cannot afford the boat fare to Kinshasa, let alone Belgium. But as the continent becomes less poor, more and more Africans will acquire the means to migrate.

More generally, the authors predict a future of labour shortages in rich countries which only migration can solve. As Europe and America age, they will need more young and energetic nurses, care assistants, housekeepers and cleaners. Robots cannot do everything, even in Japan. The demand for highly skilled workers will grow too, and countries will start to compete more fiercely for mobile talent. Migration will “define our future”, the authors say. They are probably right.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Enjoyed this read.

Thanks Cartman!

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

too late to warn us, obama's already here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

too late to warn us, obama's already here.

Yes, because Obama migrated. C'mon, Chuck.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

Yes, because Obama migrated. C'mon, Chuck.

[justashooter 430]

well, he was born in kenya...

[Danno 1,228]

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

There are 1.7 billion people in absolute Poverty (not to mention relative poverty).

"Opening up our boarders" will not save the masses.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

well, he was born in kenya...

Edited May 30, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[luckytxn 2,265]

We have enough illegals in this country that we have to absorb now. Makes it hard to open the gates to everyone when we can't stop the flood we have now.

[Golden Gate 530]

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

There are 1.7 billion people in absolute Poverty (not to mention relative poverty).

"Opening up our borders" will not save the masses.

so what will?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Golden Gate

[Golden Gate 530]

http://seniorjournal...-NineTrends.htm

...Trend 7 - Shifting Patterns of Work & Retirement

No set of issues has stimulated public discourse about population aging more than work, retirement, and economic security in old age. In Western democracies, in Eastern Europe's transitional economies, and in much of the less developed world, policymakers struggle with the balance between public and private income security systems.

In 1960, men on average could expect to spend 46 years in the workforce and a little more than one year in retirement. By 1995, the number of years in the workforce had decreased to 37 while the number of years in retirement had jumped to 12.

Trend 8 – Evolving Social Insurance System

In response to escalating pension expenditures, an increasing number of countries across the development spectrum are evaluating the sustainability of old-age social insurance systems.

Trend 9 – Emerging Economic Challenges

Population aging will have dramatic effects on local, regional, and global economies. Most significantly, financial expenditures, labor supply, and total savings will be affected.

A Window of Opportunity

The authors of the report say, "Some governments have begun to plan for the long term, but most have not. The window of opportunity for reform is closing fast as the pace of population aging accelerates. While Europe currently has four people of working age for every older person, it will have only two workers per older person by 2050. In some countries the share of gross domestic product devoted to social insurance for older people is expected to more than double in upcoming years. Countries therefore have only a few years to intensify efforts before demographic effects come to bear."

Edited May 30, 2011 by Golden Gate

[wshc 46]

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

This sounds like trickledown to me. I have often heard trickledown theory desired as a solution by the very same people that decry its effectiveness when it is convenient for them or they want to push their liberal agenda. When it come to tax cuts, they go back to their static economy theories and demand that for every dollar of tax cuts there has to be a dollar of spending cuts to offset the tax cuts. The libs always ask “How are they going to pay for those tax cuts?”

The same way that the liberal quote above would help out the poor through an increase in economy activity, in this case increased employment for the poor, this would increase economic activity enough for the poor countries so that they could move out of poverty. This is 100% Ronald Reagan trickledown theory.

So let's do it....NOT

[Golden Gate 530]

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

This sounds like trickledown to me. I have often heard trickledown theory desired as a solution by the very same people that decry its effectiveness when it is convenient for them or they want to push their liberal agenda. When it come to tax cuts, they go back to their static economy theories and demand that for every dollar of tax cuts there has to be a dollar of spending cuts to offset the tax cuts. The libs always ask "How are they going to pay for those tax cuts?"

The same way that the liberal quote above would help out the poor through an increase in economy activity, in this case increased employment for the poor, this would increase economic activity enough for the poor countries so that they could move out of poverty. This is 100% Ronald Reagan trickledown theory.

So let's do it....NOT

I don't see how the two are related. http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

[wshc 46]

I don't see how the two are related. http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

It is in the quote from the article.

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%,the world would be richer,

The additional labor force would produce goods and services naturally which increase economic activity. That is the heart and soul of trickledown. There of course has to be a market for the goods and services, and that market comes from individuals that would have more disposal income via tax cuts. The jobs would be created by employers that would have more disposal income via more economic activity. The quote doesn't specifically say that the immigrants would send money back home, but how else would they help their home country unless there was a transfer of this wealth to the home country. As the transfer of wealth increased in a monetary amount the economy of the home country would pick up and improve as a result of the increased economic activity, or because of trickledown economics. It goes hand in hand. Sorry but taxing a person or company more just to pass it on in a social program does not produce sustained economic activity or sustainable economic growth. The source of that handout must continually be renewed by the opposite of economic activity, taxation.

Edited May 30, 2011 by wshc

[Golden Gate 530]

The question I have is: Who is going to support all the old people?