Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
Arturo Macias1
0
0

But the pool of jobs is not fixed at all! Globalization show how easily is moving jobs to poor countries and how strong is resistance to immigration. Inmigrant communities often become traditionalists or end up in ghettoes in the receiving countries, while development in poor countries beguings a chain  chain reaction of social emacipation.

What is the great welfare story of the late XXth century? Export oriented development. Mass inmigration is not so brigth... New technology allow for export oriented development in a substantial part of the services sector of the West. 

Reply
See in context
by [anonymous]
2 min read 8

18

Global health & developmentPolicyImmigration reformImproving institutional decision-makingPopulation decline
Frontpage

Lant Pritchett has written an important article arguing that the political barriers to large amounts of immigration are likely to fall substantially in the coming decades due to declining fertility in rich countries and the consequent need for more workers to support an ageing population. 

From a global development point of view, I think this could be one of the most important 'mega-trends', given the large benefits to immigrants of immigration. From a longtermist point of view, I also think it could be one of the most important mega-trends in the coming decades (below AI, pandemic risk, and Great Power conflict). The geopolitical and long-term economic implications of historically unprecedented immigration seem potentially important. E.g. China's population is already declining and fertility is very low. They will likely have to substantially increase immigration in the coming decades. What will this mean for the Chinese political system? What does the fertility decline and immigration mean for trends in very long-run economic growth?

A key passage in Pritchett's piece:

"Figure 1 illustrates to keep the support ratio constant at the 2020 level of 3.08, an additional 101 million elderly need 101*3.08=310 million more labor force aged in 2050. But given the demographic changes that have (mostly) already happened—after all, everyone who will be over 28 years old in 2050 is already born--there will not be 310 million more, but rather 143 million less native-born workers. The “support ratio constant” labor force aged population would have to be 454 million higher than the projected 624 million labor force aged of the Zero Migration scenario. Maintaining a constant support ratio would imply that in 2050 42.1 percent of the labor force aged population would be the result of migration between 2020 and 2050. Put another way, there would have to be about 13 million additional workers per year into these developed regions if the support ratio is to remain constant."

i.e. to retain constant support ratios for the elderly in rich countries, 42% of the working age population would have to be immigrants. 

Abstract. A substantial expansion of migration and labor mobility in the rich industrial countries currently seems outside the Overton window, the range of acceptable political discourse. If anything, the general mood seems to favor even greater restrictiveness. I argue that five trends that are underway that could, within a decade or less, bring larger flows of migrants and labor mobility—including a major expansion of time-limited labor mobility—squarely onto the global and domestic political agenda of rich industrial countries

18

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments8


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Stephen Clare7
1
0

As an example of how powerful these demographic shifts will be, this recent paper claims that ~all of Japan's poor economic performance relative to other developed nations since the '90s can be explained by its demographic shift (specifically the decline in the population share of working age adults). Think about how much consternation there has been about Japan's slow growth. We're all headed that way.

Interestingly, AFAIK Japan has not drastically liberalized its immigration much in response to its slow growth. The proportion of foreign-born residents has grown a bit, but not much. Maybe this is changing, but we'll see if anything actually happens, and Japan has been struggling to grow for decades.

Reply
MichaelStJules3
0
0

If we're talking about the need for more workers on timelines of decades, advancements in AI and automation will be relevant. Will immigrants be necessary in decades?

Also, fertility rates are falling pretty quickly globally, so immigration might only help so much for so long on its own.

Reply
Arturo Macias3
0
1

But what about the other way around? It is far better if jobs move from the rich to the poor world. Online Kenyan administratives for UK and US firms, Peruans for Spanish firms, etc... 

The most consequential effect of the pandemics has been that it was a demo of how easily many service jobs can be performed online, and that allows for "online migration". Workers can stay at home enjoying their very cheap local cost of life while getting higher foreing wages.

 Labour and goods and capital migrations have similar economics effects, but goods and capital movements do not create the same political resistance.

Reply
Stephen Clare2
0
0
  1. I think both of these trends can occur simultaneously
  2. I'm not sure it's very helpful to think of this as "jobs moving from one country to another". It makes it seem zero-sum, whereas it is actually a positive-sum efficiency gain
  3. Migrants to higher-income countries benefit from public goods like better services and public safety in addition to higher incomes
  4. As Lant has pointed out, the higher income someone gains from moving from a low- to high-income country is enormous. IIRC it can be something like a 10x increase in consumption even if they're working the same job. So even if we imagine some fixed pool of jobs, I'm not sure it is "far better" for jobs to move from high- to low-income countries. Given the choice of working the same job in a high-income or a low-income country, I think many people would choose to move to the high-income country.
Reply
Karthik Tadepalli2
0
0

A 10x increase in consumption doesn't pass the sniff test, and indeed migrants to the US earn on average 2x more than before they migrated, 3x if they come from very poorest countries. (source, table 2)

Reply
Stephen Clare2
0
0

Interesting, thanks for checking that!

What I had in mind were the data from this Pritchett paper. He sets out a range of estimates depending on what exactly you measure. For example he shows that the US wage for construction work is 10x the median of the poorest 30 countries (p. 5). The income gains for a low skill worker moving to the US vary depending on where they're coming from, but range from 2.4x (Thailand) to 16x (Nigeria) (p. 4).

That's pretty different than the paper you cite. I'm not sure what accounts for that right now. Hopefully we see more work in this area!

Reply
Karthik Tadepalli4
0
0

Yeah the discrepancy comes from assuming that immigrants in a category would earn the same as natives in that category. The first problem is that there's substantial occupational downgrading; immigrants almost always work in lower-paid occupations than their pre-migration occupation. The second problem is that even within the same occupation, immigrants tend to have lower wages than natives (although they also have faster wage growth).

The Hendricks and Schoellman paper, in contrast, focuses on getting immigrants to the US to report their own wages before and after migration - so I think it's a better reference on the wage gains from migration than comparing average wages.

Reply
Arturo Macias1
0
0

But the pool of jobs is not fixed at all! Globalization show how easily is moving jobs to poor countries and how strong is resistance to immigration. Inmigrant communities often become traditionalists or end up in ghettoes in the receiving countries, while development in poor countries beguings a chain  chain reaction of social emacipation.

What is the great welfare story of the late XXth century? Export oriented development. Mass inmigration is not so brigth... New technology allow for export oriented development in a substantial part of the services sector of the West. 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Hiring pre-docs
Eva
· · 1m read
0
0
52
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
2
2
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more