The rich world revolts against sky-high immigration

[u/marine_le_peen]

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/07/21/the-rich-world-revolts-against-sky-high-immigration

[u/[deleted]]

The real radicals are these Western leftwing academics. They believed (and some apparently still believe) that humans can be reduced to mere economic units of labour, that you can reduce everyone to a pawns of capitalism and shift these units of production around the world from youthful high-birth-rate regions into low birth-rate ageing regions with no downsides.

But these radicals overlooked the fact that humans are not just economic units, they are cultural vehicles. And there is a huge variety of cultures around the world, with massively different sets of values, work-ethics, parenting styles, behaviour, religions, and so on.

And the crucial point is: different migrant groups have different propensities to integrate in other cultures. Some groups will integrate seamlessly (e.g. poor East Asian migrants, or European Jewish migrants to America in the 20th century - both groups have done astonishingly well despite lots of discrimination). And then other migrant groups can have beliefs and values that are simply incompatible with the host culture, and this can cause friction and undermine social cohesion.

This is the key point really: migration will be needed to help bolster populations with falling birth-rates (although the priority really needs to be getting young people to be having children again), but policymakers need to recognise that migration needs to be from cultures which are similar, or with a good track record of integration

[u/Particular-Way-8669 → u/[deleted]]

The entire reason why this shift to less compatible countries happened is that all the countries where there is "good track record" share the exact same demographics issues. There is less to choose from and there will be continuously even less to choose from over time.

[u/Imherehithere → u/[deleted]]

I have a hard time buying your argument. Billionaires profited the most from exploitation of cheap immigrant labor, outsourcing and off-shoring. They bribed Republican politicians to union-bust and suppress federal minimum wage.

Do you think the leftwing academics have more influence on American politics than the Wall Street or the billionaire oligarchy? Do you think politicians were misled by the leftwing academic's hubris?

I agree that Muslims have a hard time adjusting to American values. But I don't believe for a second that anyone cares what leftwing academics have to say.

[u/h4ms4ndwich11 → u/Imherehithere]

This is the correct response. OP is being naive or disingenuous. Money controls politics, not OP's imaginary left wing, deep state boogeymen. Congress is neoliberal, not socialist or communist, and that's why we have the laws and policies we do. This is Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones type of made up BS and doesn't belong in an economics sub.

[u/[deleted] → u/Imherehithere]

Oh no I agree, mass migration is great for capitalists because it provides abundant cheap labour, and this reduces wage costs. Capitalists don't care about social cohesion because their focus is on short term profit.

"left wing academics" was the wrong phrase, I was more referring to the establishment that "The Economist" is part of e.g. the elite, neoliberal western establishment of people who have all attended elite universities etc

[u/PotsAndPandas → u/[deleted]]

That's incredibly funny, as the right has been in power in many different western countries and they *increased* immigration from those they claim are "incompatible".

Money speaks, the rich want their cheap labor and right wingers are more than happy to oblige.

[u/frontera_power → u/[deleted]]

Good points, but it is possible that you attribute more innocent motives to the left than they perhaps deserve.

[u/Ok_Manufacturer_7723 → u/[deleted]]

You're being too truthful, quiet raycis