Swiss referendum on immigration

[-1=e^ipi]

There are a number of flawed arguments/claims here, but either they have been debunked by other posters or they aren't worth me responding to at this point.

I'll add to the conversation that many similar topics were discussed in this thread:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23095-does-progressive-racism-exist/

Though that thread mostly discussed the issues of the quality of immigration, rather than the quantity of immigration. However, this current thread is mostly discussing the quantity of immigration. In my last post in the progressive racism thread, I said:

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....al_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....nomies_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.

Basically, my position is that Canada (or most developed countries for that matter) should choose an immigrant distribution which maximizes the quality of the immigrants (and by quality I mean primarily how much economic activity they will generate in their life time minus their costs, plus other factors such as the effect of family members, charitable giving, etc.). Our immigration system is actually fairly decent at doing this relative to most developed countries, but improvements could be made (such as giving points based upon source country to account for differences in human capital quality between countries, points to discourage religious extremism, more emphasis should be placed on immigrants obtaining employment when they enter the country, and less emphasis on family immigration).

After immigrant distribution is optimized, the level of immigration should be determined based upon the trade-off between short run depletion of the capital stock and the long run benefits of economies of scale (where long and short run effects are compared using and appropriate interest value). I.e. you take the value that maximizing the Net Present Value of Canada's economy per capita.

Now I will admit that I'm not against some immigration being for 'charity' purposes, rather than 'economic' purposes (i.e. some refugees). But the vast majority of Canada's immigration should be done for 'economic' purposes, and I would prefer that others in this thread distinguish between immigration for 'charity' purposes with immigration for 'economic' purposes and please do not pretend that they are the same thing.

Also, in these threads, people tend to focus on absolute values of GDP rather than GDP per capita and I find that this is unhelpful in these discussions.

[-TSS-]

The old joke about Switzerland is that it is like the guy in the school-yard who is watching when the toughest guys in the yard are fighting and he is holding their coats while they fight and while they fight he is emptying the pockets of those coats.

[Rue]

-1 well thought out post.

[Remiel]

Oh I read the population numbers. It depends what you read. I think the population reports from China and India are way off base because once you hit a billion people, its no longer possible to be accurate. The notion you can even accurately get to a billion is silly.

I have to disagree. Now, it may in fact be the case that the populations of India and China and under-reported. But that has little to nothing to do with the total population size and everything to do with how organized their sub-divisions (India) and the willingness of people to be on the government's radar (China). I could literally just as easily say that we cannot know the combined population of North America and Europe because it is over (or at least close to) a billion people. And I would be wrong for the exact reasons I stated.

[jacee]

Now I will admit that I'm not against some immigration being for 'charity' purposes, rather than 'economic' purposes (i.e. some refugees). But the vast majority of Canada's immigration should be done for 'economic' purposes, and I would prefer that others in this thread distinguish between immigration for 'charity' purposes with immigration for 'economic' purposes and please do not pretend that they are the same thing.

In your "economic" calculations don't forget to calculate the profits made by Canadian registered corporations operating in other countries, the conflict they cause over resources, the displacement of people ... who become refugees ... and you act like 'It's nothing to do with us' ?!?!

"charity" my butt!

It's a cost of doing business.

[bud]

Now I will admit that I'm not against some immigration being for 'charity' purposes, rather than 'economic' purposes (i.e. some refugees). But the vast majority of Canada's immigration should be done for 'economic' purposes, and I would prefer that others in this thread distinguish between immigration for 'charity' purposes with immigration for 'economic' purposes and please do not pretend that they are the same thing.

Also, in these threads, people tend to focus on absolute values of GDP rather than GDP per capita and I find that this is unhelpful in these discussions.

perhaps you don't know the numbers, but over 65% of immigrants are economic, 22% family class (mostly spouse and a small fraction, parents), and 9% refugee.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/resources/statistics/facts2012/permanent/01.asp

[Rue]

Remiel that was a good point. You will find this interesting. I have a high school student from China staying with me. She says they tought her in school their population is over 2 billion. I know most of the usual sources quote it at about 1.4 billion. I tend to go with what a demographer friend once told me and that is for every human counted is another missed. I get your point though I was not trying to deliberately inflate numbers. I just think the size of human population is much bigger than we think and is misleading. To me the reality is that neither China nor India can provide enough water or food for their people and that combined with the desertification in Africa and the brain drain phenomena is shifting the Asian populations and that wave is growing larlger each day like a tsunami heading to the coastal shores. It seems on a steady pace but it back logs and rises just before entry like a tidal wave movement,each time their is a global event.

[Michael Hardner]

To me the reality is that neither China nor India can provide enough water or food for their people and that combined with the desertification in Africa and the brain drain phenomena is shifting the Asian populations and that wave is growing larlger each day like a tsunami heading to the coastal shores. It seems on a steady pace but it back logs and rises just before entry like a tidal wave movement,each time their is a global event.

Can I have a cite that these countries aren't providing food or water to their people, or that emigration to Canada (coastal shores ?) is increasing, maybe correlated with the global events you've mentioned ?

[Hudson Jones]

Can I have a cite that these countries aren't providing food or water to their people, or that emigration to Canada (coastal shores ?) is increasing, maybe correlated with the global events you've mentioned ?

Yes. Let's see the numbers behind your assertion that there is a tsunami of immigrants, Rue.

Dub provided a very good link on the number of migrants to Canada. Perhaps you should look at those numbers to have a better understanding of how immigration works in Canada. Same goes for -1=e^ipi.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Hudson Jones

[bud]

rue? how about those numbers? this is becoming all too familiar. you say something and then not back up your comments with any evidence.

[Michael Hardner]

rue? how about those numbers? this is becoming all too familiar. you say something and then not back up your comments with any evidence.

I have asked for this on the thread where Rue posted about the UN. It's too bad we still have posters who post things without any support, but it's great that we have posters that call them on it.

[overthere]

In 2007, 1.45 million resident foreigners (85.4%, or 19.1% of the total population^[12]), had European citizenship (Italian: 295,507; German: 224,324; citizens of Serbia and Montenegro: 196,078; Portuguese: 193,299; French: 83,129; Turkish: 75,382; Spanish: 66,519, Macedonian: 60,509; Bosnian: 41,654; Croatian: 38,144; Austrian: 36,155; British: 32,207). ; 109,113 residents were from Asia; 69,010 from the Americas; 66,599 from Africa; and 3,777 from Oceania.^[13]

In 2004, 35,700 people acquired Swiss citizenship according to Swiss nationality law, a figure slightly larger than that of the previous year (35,424), and four times larger than the 1990 figure (8,658). About a third of those naturalized are from a successor state of Former Yugoslavia: 7,900 Serbia-Montenegro, 2,400 Bosnia-Herzegowina, 2,000 Macedonia, 1,600 Croatia. 4,200 were from Italy, 3,600 from Turkey, 1,600 from Sri Lanka, 1,200 from Portugal, and 1,200 from France.^[14]

About 25% of the Swiss population are foreign-born. The highest rate in Europe.

see above. Most of the 'foreign born ' population is from white Europe. Very few of those get to become citizens.

[-TSS-]

Obviously in any country the vast majority of immigrants come from the nearest neighbouring countries.

[guyser]

Not for us in the frozen north.

[jbg]

Can I have a cite that these countries aren't providing food or water to their people, or that emigration to Canada (coastal shores ?) is increasing, maybe correlated with the global events you've mentioned ?

Then why are their people coming in such numbers?

[Michael Hardner]

Then why are their people coming in such numbers?

You're asking me a question based on my request for a cite. You should be asking the poster where they got their facts, not asking me to prove he/she is wrong.

[jbg]

You're asking me a question based on my request for a cite. You should be asking the poster where they got their facts, not asking me to prove he/she is wrong.

I'm trying to point out that even without a cite, there's logic and common sense behind what he said.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm trying to point out that even without a cite, there's logic and common sense behind what he said.

Really ? There's common sense logic behind this statement:

"To me the reality is that neither China nor India can provide enough water or food for their people"

It's just self-evident, is it ? I don't agree.