Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[Bonam]

Your problem isn't with immigration, then, it's with growth.

No his point is that growth needs to be measured on a per capita basis.

[Michael Hardner]

No his point is that growth needs to be measured on a per capita basis.

Ok - let's discuss then ...

[Bonam]

Ok - let's discuss then ...

Presumably Argus's assertion is that increased immigration does not lead to faster growth in GDP/capita compared to lower levels of immigration. That, in fact, too high a level of immigration actually reduces the rate of growth of GDP/capita, or even causes GDP/capita to stagnate or shrink. I'll leave it to him to provide supporting evidence if it exists and if he so chooses. Presumably, the best data in this regard would be to show a graph displaying 1) year-over-year GDP/capita growth %, and 2) normalized immigration rate for that year (immigrantion as % of existing population), for a time period saying 1960-2013, and see if there is any reduction in 1) as 2) increases. Though that would only establish correlation and not causation, that's probably the best that can be done with existing data.

And, presumably, advocates of the economic benefits of high immigration would want to show 1) increasing as 2) increases, and to my knowledge this has not been done.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bonam

[carepov]

Presumably Argus's assertion is that increased immigration does not lead to faster growth in GDP/capita compared to lower levels of immigration. That, in fact, too high a level of immigration actually reduces the rate of growth of GDP/capita, or even causes GDP/capita to stagnate or shrink. I'll leave it to him to provide supporting evidence if it exists and if he so chooses. Presumably, the best data in this regard would be to show a graph displaying 1) year-over-year GDP/capita growth %, and 2) normalized immigration rate for that year (immigrantion as % of existing population), for a time period saying 1960-2013, and see if there is any reduction in 1) as 2) increases. Though that would only establish correlation and not causation, that's probably the best that can be done with existing data.

And, presumably, advocates of the economic benefits of high immigration would want to show 1) increasing as 2) increases, and to my knowledge this has not been done.

GDP per capita:

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=35

[Michael Hardner]

I think there are too many factors at play to get anything useful from that kind of comparison.

I think a written argument might provide some more answers there....

[Argus]

Your problem isn't with immigration, then, it's with growth.

Sorry. Can you point to any benefit of growth that isn't supposed to be economic?

Do you like having more pollution, more crowded roads, longer commuting times, less greenspace?

Remember long ago when they called Toronto New York run by the Swiss. What a joke. Nobody even imagines it's well-run any more, nor have they since long before Rob Ford's time. It'd dirty, overcrowded, with overpriced homes and horrible traffic.

[Argus]

No his point is that growth needs to be measured on a per capita basis.

My point is that unless growth provides some meaningful and measurable benefit to the people already here, one which outweighs the cost of increased crowding and pollution, then why do we care about increasing it?

Is Bangladesh a better place to live than Canada because it has so many more consumers?

Can anyone point to how Canada has economically improved over the way it was ten years ago which is associated with high immigration?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry. Can you point to any benefit of growth that isn't supposed to be economic?

Do you like having more pollution, more crowded roads, longer commuting times, less greenspace?

Yep... seems like it's growth. As for Toronto, some people can manage growth and some can't.

[-1=e^ipi]

Presumably Argus's assertion is that increased immigration does not lead to faster growth in GDP/capita compared to lower levels of immigration. That, in fact, too high a level of immigration actually reduces the rate of growth of GDP/capita, or even causes GDP/capita to stagnate or shrink. I'll leave it to him to provide supporting evidence if it exists and if he so chooses. Presumably, the best data in this regard would be to show a graph displaying 1) year-over-year GDP/capita growth %, and 2) normalized immigration rate for that year (immigrantion as % of existing population), for a time period saying 1960-2013, and see if there is any reduction in 1) as 2) increases. Though that would only establish correlation and not causation, that's probably the best that can be done with existing data.

This methodology is flawed. Not only will it only indicate correlation rather than causation, but it will only show short term effects of immigration (as opposed to long term effects).

I think there are too many factors at play to get anything useful from that kind of comparison.

I think a written argument might provide some more answers there....

Maybe I can provide some insight on this question of level of immigration. While my biggest issue with immigration is the immigrant source country distribution and the immigrant quality (which in tern affects the optimal level of immigration), I do have a degree in economics so perhaps I can give a basic theoretical framework to finding the optimal level of immigration that maximizes the net present value of Canada's economy.

So with immigration, I would say the two largest effects of GDP per capita are:

1) Depletion of the capital stock. The idea is that if you have a sudden increase in the population (via immigration) the physical capital in Canada remains the same while the population increased. So you have a short term effect of lower GDP per capita due to lower physical capital per capita. Note that you can have a similar effect with human capital if the immigrants have a lower human capital per capita than the domestic population, and also note that if you have continuous immigration, this will result in a long run decrease in GDP per capita. You can read more about the neoclassical growth model here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_growth_model

2) Economies of scale. Face it, Canada is a large and empty country. Prices are high and selection of goods/services are low due to lack of competition. Canada has to invest more in infrastructure (like roads, fibre optic cables, etc) per capita than other countries because the people are so spread out. Furthermore, with the low population companies can not take advantage of scaling their operations to have a lower cost per unit of goods/services. While some countries (like Bangladesh) might have diseconomies of scale due to high density of population and low levels of development, for Canada it is pretty clear that we have economies of scale. The effect of increasing population via immigration is that in the long run it will result in a higher GDP per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

So overall, immigration will cause a short term decrease in GDP per capita, and a long term increase in GDP per capita (assuming that the quality of immigrants in terms of human capital is comparable to the domestic population). So how do we reconcile the two? Obviously both short run and long run GDP per capita have value. Well consider this: rather than decrease the short term GDP per capita of Canada and increase the long term GDP per capita of Canada by immigration, we could do it by other means (by investing in education, by investing in infrastructure, by investing in technology, etc.). By looking at the marginal trade-off between short term and long term GDP per capita by using the other means, we can determine an interest rate at which to value GDP per capita over time. And by using this interest rate, we can determine the net present value of Canada's economy as a function of the immigration level. From this we can determine the immigration level that maximizes the net present value of Canada's economy. Actually, perhaps it would be better to look at consumption per capita rather than GDP per capita, but you get the idea.

Do you guys think this would be a good way to determine the optimal level of immigration for Canada (or other countries for that matter)?

Edited November 23, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

1. So overall, immigration will cause a short term decrease in GDP per capita, and a long term increase in GDP per capita (assuming that the quality of immigrants in terms of human capital is comparable to the domestic population). So how do we reconcile the two? Obviously both short run and long run GDP per capita have value.

2. Well consider this: rather than decrease the short term GDP per capita of Canada and increase the long term GDP per capita of Canada by immigration, we could do it by other means (by investing in education, by investing in infrastructure, by investing in technology, etc.).

3. By looking at the marginal trade-off between short term and long term GDP per capita by using the other means, we can determine an interest rate at which to value GDP per capita over time. And by using this interest rate, we can determine the net present value of Canada's economy as a function of the immigration level. From this we can determine the immigration level that maximizes the net present value of Canada's economy. Actually, perhaps it would be better to look at consumption per capita rather than GDP per capita, but you get the idea.

Do you guys think this would be a good way to determine the optimal level of immigration for Canada (or other countries for that matter)?

I was going to comment on each of these points, but this sounds like an interesting exercise to me. It would provide information at least.