More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rabah Ghezali

Rabah Ghezali

GET UPDATES FROM Rabah Ghezali

Natives Do Benefit From Immigration Too

Posted: 05/16/11 04:51 PM ET

The public perception of immigrants is often negative, linking them almost exclusively to poverty and security risks. Despite this conventional wisdom, which materializes during elections, there is no proof that immigration has a negative effect on natives. The opposite, in fact, may be true. Immigration may well affect natives positively. That is what some economic empirical studies have recently shown.

If common sense commands us to believe that more immigrant workers should put downward pressure on the wages and employment of native workers, economic reality refutes it. Indeed, a recent analysis, conducted in 14 European countries from 1996 to 2007, emphasizes the existence of positive effects of immigrants on the employment of native workers. For instance, for most companies the supply of more workers performing manual tasks generates the need for more technicians and engineers who typically perform more complex tasks. As, generally speaking, migrants tend to occupy low-skilled jobs while natives hold supervising positions, the result of this specialisation is that, outside time of crisis, more immigrants can generate a higher demand for native workforce.

Tasks, not native workers, are replaced by immigrants in the production process. Natives may thus have an opportunity to move into tasks, which pay better and that are complementary to manual jobs, for which they compete among each other and not with immigrants. Immigrants boost native workers' employment only if the latter are flexible enough to adjust to new labour organizations.

Inflows of immigrants tend to boost the supply of jobs for the natives who benefit from a comparative skills advantage. And when it comes to wages, due to the complementarity between these migrants and natives' skills, a raised supply of manual tasks tend to increase the relative compensation for skilled workers, making them better paid. In addition, migrants help reducing the prices in some industries where they are predominantly employed, thus increasing the purchasing power of the natives.

A recent study shows that immigrants are beneficial to the French economy: if they receive 47.9 billion euros from the State, they pay 60.3 billion to it. In other words, the balance is 12.4 billion euros positive for the state budget. The taxes paid by the migrants are much higher than what it actually costs to the State in terms of social transfers, thus sweeping aside the idea that immigrants are a burden to the social budgets. Given the characteristics of France's economy, one should not be surprised if the figures turned to be positive if a similar study was to be done for the United Kingdom.

The economic case for labour migration is likely to become more urgent in the coming decades. As human capital has become the most crucial economic determinant in an increasingly knowledge-based world, European governments are increasingly recognizing the importance of skills in generating productivity and growth. Highly skilled workers are vital for ensuring innovation and improving economic efficiency, and therefore for creating new jobs. A study on the impact of the Green Card programme for foreign IT workers, for example, estimated that each highly skilled migrant created on average 2.5 new jobs in Germany. If attracting skilled immigrants becomes key to national competitiveness, there are serious concerns about whether Europe is attractive enough in comparison to North America.

Despite substantial structural unemployment in many European countries, native workers are often selective in their choice of occupations and locations. So although the portion of low and semi-skilled jobs is declining, there are substantial gaps in a number of these occupations. Natives' increasing skills over the decades associated with inadequate remuneration and low status explains why these gaps are increasingly filled by labour migrants. One just needs to open his eyes to observe that immigrants tend to work the jobs that natives do not want to take.

Moreover, ageing populations imply a higher ratio of economically inactive to active populations, thus placing a strain on welfare systems. Migrant workers are likely to be the ones paying the health and pensions bills, which are to become more expensive in the future.

American and European publics have recently demonstrated a certain propensity to channel their anxieties into migration issues. These anxieties are more the result of deep socio-economic changes that occurred during the last few decades -- which make native citizens feel stranger in their own country -- than rational responses to the impact of immigration which, as seen, tend in fact to be good for them.

Despite the demands of increasingly numerous populist voices to stop immigration, migration can't be closed down because migrants are part of how modern economies are managed. Simply speaking, immigration is part of national economic policy and needs to be viewed as such by the citizens.

In most countries, the migration debate turns to be rather demagogic, mainly because political decision-makers assess this issue through voters' perceptions rather than through demographic and economic realities. Migration policy is a dilemma stemming from tension between economic and electoral considerations that our uninspired representatives seem unwilling to reconcile. Our leaders should certainly remember that when governing a nation, pragmatism and truthfulness are required, virtues which, when it comes to immigration, unfortunately give way to demagogy and even xenophobia.

 

Follow Rabah Ghezali on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabahGhezali

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:11 AM on 05/23/2011
Neither of the major political parties will embrace immigration reform in the near future. Republicans fear immigrants from the third world because they are afraid that they will all vote Democrat. The leftist intelligencia will never get behind immigration reform because most of the undocumented workers are coming from Catholic countries. The left is afraid that a massive wave of religious immigrants will violate the implicit social contract brokered in the 1960's between blacks and the far left cultural and economic elites. Black folks bear the imprimatur of moral authority because of their long history of suffering they come by it honestly. In exchange for legal equality and massive yearly transfer payments (provided at tax payer expense) blacks as a group have gladly accepted the benefits conveyed by their patrons and in return have given their seal of approval on the social aspirations of the left. Immigrants, especially the unwashed masses, by and large are unaware of these forces. They are unpredictable. Their children will change the laws that will legalize their parents in the next 15 years but how this new group will otherwise impact the political landscape is anybody’s guess. I suspect they will be pissed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:24 PM on 05/17/2011
The same people who sold us on the free trade agreements and the unregulated financial industry are now trying to sell us on illegal immigration and open borders. No, they are not buying it in most European countries anymore and we are not buying here.
photo
IllTakeTheRedEye
Do you know what a nonemployer business is?
05:07 PM on 05/17/2011
Disappointing Rabah-
 
1) Today and September 3, 2010, you reference studies, but no links, footnotes, names, sources, anything. Why?
 
2) Without your sources, read this “recent study”
 
What happened after 1989* immigration surge?
RECESSION July1990–March1991 [SEE link A]
 
What happened when immigration DROPPED to 1998 & 1999** low point?
HIGHEST USA labor participation rate in more than half a century 1998 & 1999 [SEE link B]
 
What happened after 2000*** immigration surge?
RECESSION March2001–Nov 2001 [SEE link A]
 
What happened after 2005**** immigration surge?
GREAT RECESSION Dec2007–June2009 [SEE link A]
 
1985...568,149---1989..1,090,172*--1993....903,916
1986...600,027---1990..1,535,872---1994....803,993
1987...599,889---1991..1,826,595---1995....720,177
1988...641,346---1992.....973,445---1996....915,560
 
1997...797,847---2001..1,058,902--2005..1,122,257****
1998...653,206**-2002..1,059,356--2006..1,266,129
1999...644,787---2003.....703,542—2007..1,052,415
2000...841,002***2004.....957,883--2008..1,107,126
In fact, every time immigration to the USA drops in the last 100+ years, the USA economy does better
[SEE link C and A]
 
[A] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
[B] http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010&from_year=1948
[C] http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2008/table01.xls
photo
IllTakeTheRedEye
Do you know what a nonemployer business is?
05:06 PM on 05/17/2011
3) When U.S. labor force is 15% or higher foreign born, 2 highest points in USA history, is just before the USA enters a Great Depression and Great Recession. See Page 1, Figure 1 graph/chart. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acs-10.pdf)
photo
IllTakeTheRedEye
Do you know what a nonemployer business is?
05:05 PM on 05/17/2011
 
4) Your arguments were made in the 18th and 17th centuries making plantation owners and the management of the plantation profitably better? Ergo, should the USA offer mosquito netting and solar-powered water well drilling equipment to 3rd-world countries in trade for some of their children to give up their freedom forever working in the USA for free at 100 hours per week, children will be preferred to be groomed to become permanent slaves. Accept it, the GDP in the USA and France will increase by a factor of 5. Or perhaps we should outsource the work to the children abroad so the corporate elitists grow their profit.
[Yes, sarcasm]
 
5) China and India have the highest GDP growth rates in the world. Would you like to argue they did this by importing 10% of their population, or 120 million+ people? Most in the USA and Europe would argue that China and India has a lower cost of human capital, resulting in job losses in the G7. Immigration had nothing to do with it, but the natives of China and India seem to have gained from the GDP increase.
 
6) Regarding IT, replacing one native making $80,000 per year, with 2.5 migrants making $80,000 per year combined, is not an improvement. You created 2.5 new jobs with no benefits, and a lower total compensation package, and eliminated the native that had 10-20 years of knowledge value lost forever. Try not to overlook that the delay caused by the new migrants 1 year later when they have a deficit of knowledge capital to draw on will cost the enterprise time and money, as well the country in GDP growth.
 
7) Neither the USA or Europe has ever shunned foreign nationals with outstanding unique skills, suggesting either did now or 50 years ago, is a psychological ploy to claim that all foreign nationals have outstanding skills that cannot be found by natives within the G7.
 
8) What is with the fuzzy words? "native workers are often selective in their choice of occupations and locations." and "inadequate remuneration and low status" Native workers do not have to accept your corporate elitist argument that wages and benefits must continue to decline, and the answer is "migrants" willing to accept a lower standard of living. The fuzzy language of "low status" implies a job beneath someone’s station, reality is you are insisting natives accept a lower standard of living with lower compensation and no health insurance.
 
Why should the USA accept increasing GDP by lowering living standards to a 3rd-world country by cheap labor acquisition? Organic growth comes from organic innovation which does not mean a race to the bottom on wages, it means brainstorming.
photo
IllTakeTheRedEye
Do you know what a nonemployer business is?
05:04 PM on 05/17/2011
9) You wrote, "ageing populations imply a higher ratio of economically inactive to active populations,"
 
153,690 total USA labor force December 2010
http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm
 
46,591 Bachelor's degree or better December 2010
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseed3.pdf
(Do the math)
30% of labor force graduated with Bachelor's degree or better
70% of labor force considered to be lower-skilled or lower-educated or both
 
57% of labor force between age 16 years and 44 years
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf
 
38 million are 65 years +, but 16.1% are employed, 82% not in labor force
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0034.pdf
31 million over 65 and retired 2009
 
"Of the 76 million [Baby boomers] born, about 4 million had [passed away] by April 1, 2000 (when Census 2000 was taken), leaving some 72 million survivors."(http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/JustHowManyBabyBoomersAreThere.aspx)
 
Likely 20% of Baby Boomers will be employed in next 30 years because they will be healthier than those before, and need to financially according to latest reports. 46 million over 65 and retired 30 years from now, after accounting for 12M passed away and 20% employed or 14M
 
Contrary to your assertion,
USA has a higher ratio economically active than not active in 2009 and 2039
153 million to 31 million in 2009
200 million to 46 million in 2039
USA labor force in 2010 is 57% young, not baby boomer, and 70% lower-skilled or lower-educated
USA today does not need to increase legal or illegal migrants, using your own article arguments.
 
10) You wrote, “Our leaders should certainly remember that when governing a nation, pragmatism and truthfulness are required, virtues which, when it comes to immigration, unfortunately give way to demagogy and even xenophobia.”
 
Journalists should certainly remember that when writing an article, pragmatism and truthfulness are required, virtues which, when it comes to immigration, unfortunately give way to corporate greed arguments and foreign national euphoria.
11:07 AM on 05/17/2011
This is just the old "If we import more immigrants all the natives get to become rich bosses" routine. That is great if you like a classist society with you on top. Instead, if you have more jobs than you have workers try locating those jobs where the unemployed people live. Then the whole world is better off, instead of having a handful of rich countries full of immigrants and the rest of the world poor just to supply the rich with a continuing supply of cheap labor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
jweider
I know where my towel is
01:14 AM on 05/17/2011
I have nothing against immigrants as long as they arrive through proper legal channels.
Why would we want immigrants who have so little respect for our laws that they start breaking them the second that they enter the country?
11:00 AM on 05/17/2011
If we had a reasonable immigration system, that might indeed be a reasonable opinion. We don't.
04:05 PM on 05/17/2011
Well hell then I think banks suck with their ridicuolous practices so can I be illegal and go rob them? Sorry but laws are laws and if they are bad change them but in the mean time follow the law. Quite easy even for you to understand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:17 PM on 05/17/2011
The USA allows more than 1 Million legal immigrants for citizenship per year. More than any other country in the world. Then there are all the visa holders on top of that. What do you call reasonable ? Open borders ? Anyone who wants to come in can ?
07:22 PM on 05/16/2011
I benefitted. My wife is an immigrant. A LEGAL IMMIGRANT AND NOW US CITIZEN. Duh, we understand the benefits of immigration, but do you understand that the PIE is only so big? And the more mouths that take a bite off of that pie, the less everybody ends up with?
11:03 AM on 05/17/2011
No, actually, I don't. As the columnist explained, immigrants -- all immigrants, not just the formal ones -- contribute to economic growth. We won't better our use of resources by this kind of "I got mine, now *you* go get lost" thinking. It's based on fear, and it does us a lot of harm.
01:50 PM on 05/17/2011
You miss the point; it's about controlled immigration, notwithstanding this free for all that benefits mostly the corporations. I was a manager in a very large publicly traded darling of wall stree burrito chain. We had so many illegal applicants that the employed workers were always in fear of their jobs, knowing that they could be replaced at any minute. I loved each any every one of these people, but the corporation knew they had the upper hand on them and used it to keep their wages suppressed. So organic and sustainable of them. Integrity indeed! Those poor immigrants were just mere slaves to help the company make record profits for wall street. I quit in disgust. So don't lecture me with your nonsense. Immigration is not just some high minded social arguement. These people deserve better, but don't even realize they are being used, bringing more and more people to eat from the same pie that leaves less for everybody, including themselves. Maybe you liberals should start thi king with your mind, not your emotions.
01:53 PM on 05/17/2011
That "notwithstanding" in the first sentence was an auto correct on my iPad. Can't remember what I meant to say in my tirade. Sorry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jujubees
starch, gum and corn syrup, bees extra
05:10 PM on 05/16/2011
Google Mexican pointy boots...

You can't build a wall between our countries' borders fast enough...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jujubees
starch, gum and corn syrup, bees extra
05:06 PM on 05/16/2011
I must disagree with the author for one simple reason.
Google "Mexican pointy boots"...

Whatever the dimensions on the wall we were planning on building between the U.S. and Mexican border, please double those dimensions.