Bangladesh migrants, the citizens of no man's land

[Mad Indian]

It is carpenter, but I think I understand what you are saying.

Now, obviously, carpenter->clerk->doctor situation is better than carpenter->carpenter->carpenter situation.

Not really. For instance, if given a choice to work as a clerk in India for 100$ or as a carpenter in US for 4000$, what would majority of people pick? And which among the two is a better economic or social choice?

Have you considered this situation?

A is a carpenter and makes Rs. 100. B is a carpenter, but manages to make Rs. 90, because there has been an influx of low-skilled immigrants. C is a carpenter, and manages a meagre Rs. 81, because the market has been flooded with plenty of low-skilled labourers.

The carpenter has to either adapt to the new market realities or find a better job- just like how computers of the old days caused apparant job loss, but ultimately ended up being better for the economy overall! And many of you think that unemployment is about people not able to find work- thats not true. Its people not finding work-they want to work in.

To get in other types of examples, an electric fan replacing the "people using manual fans in palaces" of rich people is going to affect the job of the "fan" person since no man can give the result of the automated electric fan as cheaply(i hope you get my point). But thats what progress is- you leave behind the sectors you are inefficient in onto the sectors you are more efficient in!

Also, note that I can use this same argument against your stance that high skill immgration is good for the country. By high skilled people coming to our country, our doctors and engineers will be paid less. So wont that affect the economy? So are you hurting US economy by staying in US? Thats nonsense!

Actually, that was not my point. My point was that your claims of immigration of low skilled people affecting social mobility is false. Again you have to demostrate how social mobility was affected by immigration? Your claim of social mobility being affected by low skilled immigration is true only if it prevents the carpenters son from becoming a clerk or some one higher up the social ladder. But since the immigrant carpenter is only going to replace the resident carpenter jobs, it really cant affect social mobility of the carpenter's son, now does it? If you claim that immigrant clerk will prevent a carpenter's son from becoming a competing clerk by making it more difficult for that carpenter's son, it would atleast make sense in context.

Also, cheaper labor means cheaper goods produced = cheaper availabilty of goods for everybody. Again,it is no different than the robot example of reduced labor costs. And also, kindly explain

How does that, in the wildest way, support your position that unskilled labourers will not cause problems with social mobility?

Dude, what the deuce? You guys claimed that social mobility is affected by population migration , not me. I just countered your stance with logic. You guys should be the one proving your stance.

That aside, I I can cite USA of the 1850-1910s as an example of immigration causing economic boom(note that US of that period was eerily similiar to India of today, .ie a largely agrarian economy transforming into an industrial one) . Did that result in US residents getting poorer? Did that immigration of low skilled peasants and poor from the other corners into US result in lowered social mobility of the US.

 

[pmaitra]

Not really. For instance, if given a choice to work as a clerk in India for 100$ or as a carpenter in US for 4000$, what would majority of people pick? And which among the two is a better economic or social choice?

You cannot be a carpenter and have a choice to emigrate to the US. US does not take low-skilled workers from India. It only takes highly skilled workers. Go to the USCIS website and check it out yourself. Your argument is null and void.

The carpenter has to either adapt to the new market realities or find a better job- just like how computers of the old days caused apparant job loss, but ultimately ended up being better for the economy overall! And many of you think that unemployment is about people not able to find work- thats not true. Its people not finding work-they want to work in.

Not everyone can adapt to changing market realities. Let's go back to the A, B, and C example.

A is a carpenter and he was barely surviving. So, he was not able to educate his child, B, beyond high school, and had to make him join his carpentry business. Ditto with C. So, this family is stuck in a vicious cycle.

To get in other types of examples, an electric fan replacing the "people using manual fans in palaces" of rich people is going to affect the job of the "fan" person since no man can give the result of the automated electric fan as cheaply(i hope you get my point). But thats what progress is- you leave behind the sectors you are inefficient in onto the sectors you are more efficient in!

Who said manual fan has been replaced? Yes, the use of manual fans has reduced, but whenever there is a power-cut, people use hand-fans, which are manual fans. The only difference is, earlier, there were servants who fanned an individual, and today, the individual has to fan himself. That does not take away what I had said earlier. People have fans only because it is economically viable. If it were not, no house would have fans installed.

Also, note that I can use this same argument against your stance that high skill immgration is good for the country. By high skilled people coming to our country, our doctors and engineers will be paid less. So wont that affect the economy? So are you hurting US economy by staying in US? Thats nonsense!

Highly skilled people would not come to our country unless there were demand. If there is demand, the market fulfils the demand by creating a supply.

Actually, that was not my point.

I know. You are tying yourself in a knot.

My point was that your claims of immigration of low skilled people affecting social mobility is false. Again you have to demostrate how social mobility was affected by immigration? Your claim of social mobility being affected by low skilled immigration is true only if it prevents the carpenters son from becoming a clerk or some one higher up the social ladder. But since the immigrant carpenter is only going to replace the resident carpenter jobs, it really cant affect social mobility of the carpenter's son, now does it? If you claim that immigrant clerk will prevent a carpenter's son from becoming a competing clerk by making it more difficult for that carpenter's son, it would atleast make sense in context.

My claim is influx of low skilled people in the job market will not guarantee upward mobility of families, such as that A, B, and C family.

Even if the immigrant carpenter displaces the resident carpenter, how does that guarantee that the resident carpenter's grandson will become a doctor?

Also, cheaper labor means cheaper goods produced = cheaper availabilty of goods for everybody. Again,it is no different than the robot example of reduced labor costs. And also, kindly explain

Cheaper labour will reduce the cost of goods produced by that labour. True. So? Does that mean people will be able to spend less and save more? The people who will be spending will be earning less money because labour is cheap, duh! So, they will still be buying less and saving less.

You will not necessarily have cheap labour in one sector, and expensive labour in another sector. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Also, if the cost of labour is less in one sector, part of the labour will try to shift to another sector that pays more. This is also a market phenomenon.

Again, water will find its own level.

Dude, what the deuce? You guys claimed that social mobility is affected by population migration , not me. I just countered your stance with logic. You guys should be the one proving your stance.

What? Quote me where I said that.

That aside, I I can cite USA of the 1850-1910s as an example of immigration causing economic boom(note that US of that period was eerily similiar to India of today, .ie a largely agrarian economy transforming into an industrial one) . Did that result in US residents getting poorer? Did that immigration of low skilled peasants and poor from the other corners into US result in lowered social mobility of the US.

Did that result in the US residents getting poorer? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that economic boom was followed by the Great Depression that began in 1929, and of that, there is no doubt.

 

[Ray]

Legal Immigration Policies for Low-Skilled Foreign Workers | migrationpolicy.org

 

[Mad Indian]

You cannot be a carpenter and have a choice to emigrate to the US. US does not take low-skilled workers from India. It only takes highly skilled workers. Go to the USCIS website and check it out yourself. Your argument is null and void.

Excellent change of the goalposts. Very good try.

Anyway, you wrote this in response to my post on economic development and social development

Now, obviously, carpenter->clerk->doctor situation is better than carpenter->carpenter->carpenter situation.

For the above quote I replied with this on why your post might not always be a correct about the "Now, obviously, carpenter->clerk->doctor situation is better than carpenter->carpenter->carpenter situation." part:

Not really. For instance, if given a choice to work as a clerk in India for 100$ or as a carpenter in US for 4000$, what would majority of people pick? And which among the two is a better economic or social choice?

So I debunk your point that being a carpenter is always worse than being a clerk/doctor with a question and you now claim that my point is invalid because of US immigration policies

Not everyone can adapt to changing market realities. Let's go back to the A, B, and C example.

Not everyone can adapt to mechanisation of economy. So lets stick with the handlooms and not destroy the lives of the workers. So, another bad argument

A is a carpenter and he was barely surviving. So, he was not able to educate his child, B, beyond high school, and had to make him join his carpentry business. Ditto with C. So, this family is stuck in a vicious cycle.

Strawman and has nothing to do with immigration really. Again if you are going to bring in the drop in labor wages due to immigration- then mechanisation also causes drop in labor wages?!?! So why not stop mechanisation?

Who said manual fan has been replaced? Yes, the use of manual fans has reduced, but whenever there is a power-cut, people use hand-fans, which are manual fans. The only difference is, earlier, there were servants who fanned an individual, and today, the individual has to fan himself. That does not take away what I had said earlier. People have fans only because it is economically viable. If it were not, no house would have fans installed.

LOL. So if I use an example to which you are used to like cheaper electric fans which has replaced the work of the manual "fanners" and hence by your logic and argument have lost their livelihood and job, it becomes "it is economically viable" but if I use a similiar example to which your bias is against like migrant workers, then it becomes bad for the economy.

I dont think you get the self contradicting nature of your argument. Anyway, to give an example of why your argument is self contradictory- lets replace the electric fans with manual fans manned by manual servants. It will generate employment and get rid of poverty for at least some unemployed people?.?@!>!

Again there is no difference between between the "electric fans" which reduce the cost of manning the fans, and cheaper immigrant carpenters reducing the cost of carpenting. Your bias is preventing you to see the similiarity

Highly skilled people would not come to our country unless there were demand. If there is demand, the market fulfils the demand by creating a supply.

So? Immigrant labors dont immigrate to this country unless there is demand. Kind of makes your argument contradictory again isn't it?

I know. You are tying yourself in a knot.

yeah right

My claim is influx of low skilled people in the job market will not guarantee upward mobility of families, such as that A, B, and C family.

And Where did I claim that immigration will cause upward social mobility ?

Again dude, it was @Bangalorean who claimed that immigration affects social mobility. My point was that immigration has no effect on the social mobility. Again, do you defend his position that immigration decreases social mobility?

Even if the immigrant carpenter displaces the resident carpenter, how does that guarantee that the resident carpenter's grandson will become a doctor?

Strawman argument. It was not my point. My point was that a 50% cheaper immigrant carpenter replacing native carpenter has the same effect as a 50% robot replacing a native carpenter does. But somehow, to you and Bangalorean and I suspect majority of the capitalist folk here , the robot replacing the carpeneter's work would be good for the economy and an immigrant replacing the carpenter's work is bad for it though both have essentially the same function

And before you bring in efficiency- we call computers efficient only because it does 10 times the work(be it faster or more) of the human for the same cost. .ie, It is efficient to use robot/computer in place of a Human only if the cost of using that inplace of Humans is cheaper. That is what efficiency is.

for example,
1. A computer/robot costing 50000 rupees to maintain per month and produces 100 clothes per month is 2 times more efficient than 10 Humans working for 100000 rupees a month producing 100 clothes.

2. 10 Immigrants working for 50000 per month to produce 100 clothes per month is 2 times more efficient that 10 native Indians working for 100000 rupees per month producing 100 clothes

There is no difference between 1 and 2, but many of you here 1 is bad because you "know" computerisation is good and 2 is bad because you "know" immigration is bad

@Bangalorean This was my point all along. If you have a counter for this argument, I am all years

Cheaper labour will reduce the cost of goods produced by that labour. True. So? Does that mean people will be able to spend less and save more? The people who will be spending will be earning less money because labour is cheap, duh! So, they will still be buying less and saving less.

False assertion. You dont see how your argument is false by itself? Let me explain, if you are claiming that cheaper labor is bad for the economy, then by the same logic, a new legislation to give more wages to the labor would make the economy super rich?! See how bad it sounds?

For ex. I have 100000 rupees, and I spend 100000 on managing my business. Now I am starting to employ cheaper immigrants at the cost of 50000 rupees. So ? What will happen to my 50000 rupees? Will it evaporate, or will it allow me to expand my operation and hence increase my production more by investing in the market back??:?|

To give another example of why your assertion is utterly false, if people emplo power looms instead of the handlooms, it reduces the cost of production(note that the labor wages come under the production cost of a good or a service when its cost of production is calculated) several fold and reduces the no. of people employed in the textiles. So does it mean that Power loom textiles cause mass poverty?!?

You will not necessarily have cheap labour in one sector, and expensive labour in another sector. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Also, if the cost of labour is less in one sector, part of the labour will try to shift to another sector that pays more. This is also a market phenomenon.

Strawman. Has nothing to do with my point in anyway

Again, water will find its own level.

Exactly, if we allow immigration freely, then water will find its own level ass well. The only thing is , it is also beneficial to the economy just like how robots are beneficial

What? Quote me where I said that.

I said you "guys". Bangalorean made that claim in his post and you liked his post. I assumed you agreed with him since you liked his post

Did that result in the US residents getting poorer? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that economic boom was followed by the Great Depression that began in 1929, and of that, there is no doubt.

Wow. Now Great economic depression is caused by immigration policy of US?

And US residents became so poor due to immigration while desolate and desperate people from europe came over to US and made themselves a fortune. You do know that the immigration was voluntary right? which means the immigrants would have only migrated if they knew that their life would be better than the place they were migrating from?

 

[Mad Indian]

@Bangalorean and @pmaitra

This video is worth thousands of my words. Pls watch it if you have time

 

[pmaitra]

Excellent change of the goalposts. Very good try.

It was an off-side on your part. Try again. The game ain't over yet!
[HR][/HR]

Anyway, you wrote this in response to my post on economic development and social development



For the above quote I replied with this on why your post might not always be a correct about the "Now, obviously, carpenter->clerk->doctor situation is better than carpenter->carpenter->carpenter situation." part:



So I debunk your point that being a carpenter is always worse than being a clerk/doctor with a question and you now claim that my point is invalid because of US immigration policies

Not at all. You are wrong, and I will explain why.

How much effort does it take to acquire the skills of a carpenter? Now, compare that with the effort required to acquire the skills of a doctor?

The efforts required are never the same. The former skill is easy to achieve, and hence, there is going to be a larger supply of labour with skills of carpentry, and a comparatively lesser supply of people with the skills of a doctor. In view of this disparity in supply of two very different types of labour, a carpenter will almost always earn less than a doctor.

Your example of a carpenter in India and a carpenter in the US is inane.

Instead, compare a carpenter, clerk, and a doctor in India with a carpenter, clerk, and a doctor in the US.

• In India: Being a carpenter is almost always less lucrative than being a doctor.
• In US: Being a carpenter is almost always less lucrative than being a doctor.

Now, let's inspect your surreal example of a carpenter having the chance of moving to the US and working as a carpenter.

When you say that a carpenter has a chance to move to the US and work as a carpenter, then we can assume two things:

1. Only one or a few carpenters got the chance to move to the US to work as a carpenter. In this case, it is an exception, and I am not going to waste my time debating this.
2. There is free movement of labour between India and US. Initially, a carpenter's wage in US will be higher than in India. Over a period of time, the two wages will approach each other—US wages will come down, and Indian wages will go up. So, your point is correct only in the short term, and is null and void if we expand the time period to three generations, using your example of A, B, and C.

[HR][/HR]

Not everyone can adapt to mechanisation of economy. So lets stick with the handlooms and not destroy the lives of the workers. So, another bad argument

If you want to have a conversation with your shadow, by all means do so. If you want to have a conversation with me, read what I write. Here, I am replicating my comment for your comfort.

As I have said before, water will find its own level. If we have a free market, mechanization or robotization will happen only to that extent that it is economically viable. Beyond that, it won't happen.

[HR][/HR]

Strawman and has nothing to do with immigration really. Again if you are going to bring in the drop in labor wages due to immigration- then mechanisation also causes drop in labor wages?!?! So why not stop mechanisation?

Has nothing to do with immigration? Yes.
Strawman? No.

Mechanization sometimes does and sometimes does not cause a drop in production costs. When factories take financial decision, they factor in all the costs, including, but certainly not limited to, labour wages.
[HR][/HR]

LOL. So if I use an example to which you are used to like cheaper electric fans which has replaced the work of the manual "fanners" and hence by your logic and argument have lost their livelihood and job, it becomes "it is economically viable" but if I use a similiar example to which your bias is against like migrant workers, then it becomes bad for the economy.

Iteration 1: What does this even mean? What if electricity became prohibitively expensive? As I already said, mechanization or robotization will only happen to the extent it is economically viable. Are you having difficulty reading what I am writing?
[HR][/HR]

I dont think you get the self contradicting nature of your argument. Anyway, to give an example of why your argument is self contradictory- lets replace the electric fans with manual fans manned by manual servants. It will generate employment and get rid of poverty for at least some unemployed people?.?@!>!

You are drawing your own conclusions, so I will leave the honour of explaining thee conclusions to you.
[HR][/HR]

Again there is no difference between between the "electric fans" which reduce the cost of manning the fans, and cheaper immigrant carpenters reducing the cost of carpenting. Your bias is preventing you to see the similiarity

Iteration 2: What does this even mean? What if electricity became prohibitively expensive? As I already said, mechanization or robotization will only happen to the extent it is economically viable. Are you having difficulty reading what I am writing?
[HR][/HR]

So? Immigrant labors dont immigrate to this country unless there is demand. Kind of makes your argument contradictory again isn't it?

If labour do not immigrate, then that labour is not immigrant labour. Ironically, you mention contradiction.

Immigration or no immigration, labour will not migrate from point A to point B, unless the demand for labour at point B exceeds the demand for labour at point A, and there is no restriction in movement of labour.
[HR][/HR]

yeah right

Thank you for agreeing with me.
[HR][/HR]

And Where did I claim that immigration will cause upward social mobility ?

Maybe I misunderstood you. So, you agree that immigration of low skilled labour will not guarantee upward mobility of resident low skilled labour?
[HR][/HR]

Again dude, it was @Bangalorean who claimed that immigration affects social mobility. My point was that immigration has no effect on the social mobility. Again, do you defend his position that immigration decreases social mobility?

Ok, then, @Bangalorean may counter you on that point. I offer no argument here.
[HR][/HR]

Strawman argument. It was not my point. My point was that a 50% cheaper immigrant carpenter replacing native carpenter has the same effect as a 50% robot replacing a native carpenter does. But somehow, to you and Bangalorean and I suspect majority of the capitalist folk here , the robot replacing the carpeneter's work would be good for the economy and an immigrant replacing the carpenter's work is bad for it though both have essentially the same function

Not at all a strawman. As I said, acquiring the skills of a doctor is far more challenging than acquiring the skills of a carpenter. Medical school isn't exactly cheap, but even if we ignore that for socialist countries, where education is subsidized, it requires a lot of time devoted towards studying, thus taking away an extra pair of hands that could otherwise earn immediate money. Even to become a clerk, one has to devote time to study instead of helping his carpenter dad put together doors and windows.
[HR][/HR]

And before you bring in efficiency- we call computers efficient only because it does 10 times the work(be it faster or more) of the human for the same cost. .ie, It is efficient to use robot/computer in place of a Human only if the cost of using that inplace of Humans is cheaper. That is what efficiency is.

for example,
1. A computer/robot costing 50000 rupees to maintain per month and produces 100 clothes per month is 2 times more efficient than 10 Humans working for 100000 rupees a month producing 100 clothes.

2. 10 Immigrants working for 50000 per month to produce 100 clothes per month is 2 times more efficient that 10 native Indians working for 100000 rupees per month producing 100 clothes

To the first point, if mechanization is economically viable, yes, it is more efficient.

To the second point, let's see.

10 immigrants—100 clothes—$50000/month
vs
10 residents—100 clothes—Rs. 100000/month (=$2000, assuming $1 = Rs. 50)

Which one is more efficient? The jury is out.
[HR][/HR]

There is no difference between 1 and 2, but many of you here 1 is bad because you "know" computerisation is good and 2 is bad because you "know" immigration is bad

Is there no difference between points 1 and 2? Perhaps yes, if by PPP, $1 in the US is worth the same as Rs. 2 in India.
[HR][/HR]

@Bangalorean This was my point all along. If you have a counter for this argument, I am all years


False assertion. You dont see how your argument is false by itself? Let me explain, if you are claiming that cheaper labor is bad for the economy, then by the same logic, a new legislation to give more wages to the labor would make the economy super rich?! See how bad it sounds?

How is that a false assertion? When wages fall across the board, that means the value of the currency increases w.r.t. goods/services/labour. This is called deflation. Look it up. Also, look up the good sides and bad sides of deflation.
[HR][/HR]

For ex. I have 100000 rupees, and I spend 100000 on managing my business. Now I am starting to employ cheaper immigrants at the cost of 50000 rupees. So ? What will happen to my 50000 rupees? Will it evaporate, or will it allow me to expand my operation and hence increase my production more by investing in the market back??:?|

You are thinking from your own selfish PoV. Yes, you and only you will benefit, not the economy. Those residents you will make jobless will have to live on dole due to legislation (I am using your own weapon against you), and the government will tax you, and tax your low paid workers more than usual, so that those rendered jobless can survive. Assuming there is no legislation, at least some out of those jobless will break into your house and steal you money. I am sure this sounds like a delightful economic benefit to you. Not quite to me.
[HR][/HR]

To give another example of why your assertion is utterly false, if people emplo power looms instead of the handlooms, it reduces the cost of production(note that the labor wages come under the production cost of a good or a service when its cost of production is calculated) several fold and reduces the no. of people employed in the textiles. So does it mean that Power loom textiles cause mass poverty?!?

What handloom? Are you kidding me? Read what I said above.

We had basket weavers when we needed them. Now, we use polyurethane baskets, and hence, we rarely find basket weavers. Mechanization in this case has happened only because it was economically viable.

Ditto with power-looms.
[HR][/HR]

Strawman. Has nothing to do with my point in anyway

Not a strawman. If you want to disagree, I am fine with it. Yes, it has something to do with your point. It demolishes your premise.
[HR][/HR]

Exactly, if we allow immigration freely, then water will find its own level ass well. The only thing is , it is also beneficial to the economy just like how robots are beneficial

As I said, if there is demand, and if we have a free market, immigration will happen, otherwise, it won't happen. It is beneficial only if those rendered jobless find another job, or see upward mobility by becoming clerks and doctors, but then, you agree, that upward mobility is not guaranteed, and hence, your claim of benefit to the economy is not guaranteed.
[HR][/HR]

I said you "guys". Bangalorean made that claim in his post and you liked his post. I assumed you agreed with him since you liked his post

Ok, again, I think @Bangalorean should debate with you on this point.
[HR][/HR]

Wow. Now Great economic depression is caused by immigration policy of US?

And US residents became so poor due to immigration while desolate and desperate people from europe came over to US and made themselves a fortune. You do know that the immigration was voluntary right? which means the immigrants would have only migrated if they knew that their life would be better than the place they were migrating from?

Try reading what you quoted again.

Did that result in the US residents getting poorer? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that economic boom was followed by the Great Depression that began in 1929, and of that, there is no doubt.

If possible, memorize it, then stand in front of a mirror and recite it 180 times. Hopefully you will understand what I am saying.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I think I broadly agree with @Mad Indian here.

People are confusing here the hypothetical ill-effects of migrants.

1) Did rural Indians not migrate to cities or out of agricultural sector because Bangladeshis were stealing their jobs in cities?
- What is the number of jobs stolen by Bangladeshis that Indians wanted? Does a rural Indian want every low paid job taken up by Bangladeshi?
Just because they take up some jobs does not mean Indians wanted those jobs. May be the concerned Indians are poor but still do not want to migrate and get the job.

2) About the efficiency point of view. I do not think anyone countered the points showing similarity of mechanization and cheap labor. As long as you can get cheap labor it will lead to efficiency increase and will show up somewhere else in the economy. If people save on cheap clothes, may be they spend it on holidays and help someone become a tour guide. It is impossible to track the individual impact.
If you do not allow immigration, may be some jobs will never be created. So, no efficiency increase and no upward mobility with anti-immigration policy.

Most of the times, governments stir up anti-immigration rhetoric for low skilled people because they cannot argue their case well and it is easier to kick them out and score brownie points in front of their own unskilled population. Does it help anyone or how big are the effects are never discussed?

Also, just adding to the logic that there is no huge wage differential between India and Bangladesh, then not many Bangladeshis would migrate to India as the wage gap closes due to immigration. So why worry about it? Let the water find its level!!

 

[Mad Indian]

I think I broadly agree with @Mad Indian here.

People are confusing here the hypothetical ill-effects of migrants.

1) Did rural Indians not migrate to cities or out of agricultural sector because Bangladeshis were stealing their jobs in cities?
- What is the number of jobs stolen by Bangladeshis that Indians wanted? Does a rural Indian want every low paid job taken up by Bangladeshi?
Just because they take up some jobs does not mean Indians wanted those jobs. May be the concerned Indians are poor but still do not want to migrate and get the job.

2) About the efficiency point of view. I do not think anyone countered the points showing similarity of mechanization and cheap labor. As long as you can get cheap labor it will lead to efficiency increase and will show up somewhere else in the economy. If people save on cheap clothes, may be they spend it on holidays and help someone become a tour guide. It is impossible to track the individual impact.
If you do not allow immigration, may be some jobs will never be created. So, no efficiency increase and no upward mobility with anti-immigration policy.

Most of the times, governments stir up anti-immigration rhetoric for low skilled people because they cannot argue their case well and it is easier to kick them out and score brownie points in front of their own unskilled population. Does it help anyone or how big are the effects are never discussed?

Also, just adding to the logic that there is no huge wage differential between India and Bangladesh, then not many Bangladeshis would migrate to India as the wage gap closes due to immigration. So why worry about it? Let the water find its level!!

If one is not blinded by bias , it is very easy to see how ludacris and self contradictory many of the arguments against immigration and imports are

 

[Bangalorean]

Ok, I've read all the posts here. It definitely made me think deeply and hard. While some points that @Mad Indian makes are valid, I still stick to my original point that immigration is not a good thing, while mechanization/computerization can be a good thing. Here's why:

The goal of society is to give everyone economic as well as social mobility. We literally have human beasts of burden because it is cheaper to hire a human to transport 30 kg on his back than to hire a tempo. We have people who do filthy work like cleaning drains by hand. We have people who clean the streets, live on the streets and shit on the streets.

Now, let us see what happens if we replace these people by: a) Bangladeshis, b) Machines

If you replace these human beasts of burden and the lowest strata of society with Bangladeshis, you will continue to have several humans doing this work, because costs are kept down by constant influx. As one Bangladeshi family moves slightly up the ladder (economic or social), he is replaced by other Bangladeshi families. This process will never end.

If however, Bangladeshis stop coming to India, then costs begin to go up for such tasks. It is no longer viable to hire human beasts of burden. It is no longer viable to get men to clean drains with their bare hands. It is no longer viable to pay people so less that they live, shit, eat, sleep and die on the streets. Society gradually moves up the ladder. Machines will become viable tools for street cleaning, and one person can clean 10 streets instead of 1 in the same time, thanks to the machine. He will be well paid too, he can send his children to college.

There is no shortage of poor and desperate people in the world. They can keep coming in, ad infinitum. If you want your society to progress and get rid of indignities of the sort I mentioned above, you have to allow labour costs to rise, and provide dignity to your own people.

In my definition, "water finding its own level" means, let labour costs rise, let it become more economical to use machines and automation. Let those labourers who remain in manual labour, be better paid, have a better quality of life. The average construction worker in Germany is better educated, more intelligent, healthier and richer than the average Indian. Yes, not the average Indian labourer, but the average Indian.

Do we want Indian society to look like that one day? Or do we want to keep letting in hordes of Bangladeshis and the rest of the world's poverty-stricken masses?

"Water finding its own level" does not mean allowing free movement of labour across borders. There is a reason that no country has an open border policy like that, except when the countries in question are at very similar levels of economic and social development. If that equilibrium gets even slightly disturbed, there is chaos, and demands to get rid of the "free movement of labour". Witness the troubles of EU with the PIGS nations, for example.

It requires 4 labourers at the rate of Rs. 500 per day per labourer to get plastering of a small house done. In 10 years that will go up to Rs. 2000 per day per labourer. At that point, it will make more sense to bring in one of those high-tech plastering machines that are used in large structures like skyscrapers. That becomes more economically viable. And the beautiful thing is, that plaster machine is faster, more reliable, more productive and more efficient than the humans. So, there are two options: either bring in 4 Bangladeshis who will work for 500/day, with the associated inefficiencies/problems/slowness of human work. Or, I just get the plastering machine. Think about it and tell me, what would you prefer? The plastering machine gives a damn smooth finish, and does the work in 5 days as opposed to 10 days taken by humans. The finish has no cracks, no imperfections. Due to this, your house looks better, you save on wall putty while painting later (since there are no imperfections in plaster, you don't need to put lot of putty to even out the imperfections caused by human plastering). AND you get your house faster. You save on rent, you save on interest, development happens faster.

Extrapolate this example on a nationwide scale, for various domains and verticals.

I can't resist giving one more example.

Lets say there is a company which is doing a lot of manual invoicing. On big reams of paper, with pens. They store all their paperwork in a big godown. 10 people are needed just for record filing, entry, sorting, etc. Their salary keeps increasing. Now, you have a choice: either bring 10 Yemenis instead of them (who will work for lower salary), or get a computer. Which is better for the economy, which is better for the company, which is better for the country?

Please think about it.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Ok, I've read all the posts here. It definitely made me think deeply and hard. While some points that @Mad Indian makes are valid, I still stick to my original point that immigration is not a good thing, while mechanization/computerization can be a good thing. Here's why:

The goal of society is to give everyone economic as well as social mobility. We literally have human beasts of burden because it is cheaper to hire a human to transport 30 kg on his back than to hire a tempo. We have people who do filthy work like cleaning drains by hand. We have people who clean the streets, live on the streets and shit on the streets.

Now, let us see what happens if we replace these people by: a) Bangladeshis, b) Machines

If you replace these human beasts of burden and the lowest strata of society with Bangladeshis, you will continue to have several humans doing this work, because costs are kept down by constant influx. As one Bangladeshi family moves slightly up the ladder (economic or social), he is replaced by other Bangladeshi families. This process will never end.

If however, Bangladeshis stop coming to India, then costs begin to go up for such tasks. It is no longer viable to hire human beasts of burden. It is no longer viable to get men to clean drains with their bare hands. It is no longer viable to pay people so less that they live, shit, eat, sleep and die on the streets. Society gradually moves up the ladder. Machines will become viable tools for street cleaning, and one person can clean 10 streets instead of 1 in the same time, thanks to the machine. He will be well paid too, he can send his children to college.

There is no shortage of poor and desperate people in the world. They can keep coming in, ad infinitum. If you want your society to progress and get rid of indignities of the sort I mentioned above, you have to allow labour costs to rise, and provide dignity to your own people.

In my definition, "water finding its own level" means, let labour costs rise, let it become more economical to use machines and automation. Let those labourers who remain in manual labour, be better paid, have a better quality of life. The average construction worker in Germany is better educated, more intelligent, healthier and richer than the average Indian. Yes, not the average Indian labourer, but the average Indian.

Do we want Indian society to look like that one day? Or do we want to keep letting in hordes of Bangladeshis and the rest of the world's poverty-stricken masses?

"Water finding its own level" does not mean allowing free movement of labour across borders. There is a reason that no country has an open border policy like that, except when the countries in question are at very similar levels of economic and social development. If that equilibrium gets even slightly disturbed, there is chaos, and demands to get rid of the "free movement of labour". Witness the troubles of EU with the PIGS nations, for example.

It requires 4 labourers at the rate of Rs. 500 per day per labourer to get plastering of a small house done. In 10 years that will go up to Rs. 2000 per day per labourer. At that point, it will make more sense to bring in one of those high-tech plastering machines that are used in large structures like skyscrapers. That becomes more economically viable. And the beautiful thing is, that plaster machine is faster, more reliable, more productive and more efficient than the humans. So, there are two options: either bring in 4 Bangladeshis who will work for 500/day, with the associated inefficiencies/problems/slowness of human work. Or, I just get the plastering machine. Think about it and tell me, what would you prefer? The plastering machine gives a damn smooth finish, and does the work in 5 days as opposed to 10 days taken by humans. The finish has no cracks, no imperfections. Due to this, your house looks better, you save on wall putty while painting later (since there are no imperfections in plaster, you don't need to put lot of putty to even out the imperfections caused by human plastering). AND you get your house faster. You save on rent, you save on interest, development happens faster.

Extrapolate this example on a nationwide scale, for various domains and verticals.

I can't resist giving one more example.

Lets say there is a company which is doing a lot of manual invoicing. On big reams of paper, with pens. They store all their paperwork in a big godown. 10 people are needed just for record filing, entry, sorting, etc. Their salary keeps increasing. Now, you have a choice: either bring 10 Yemenis instead of them (who will work for lower salary), or get a computer. Which is better for the economy, which is better for the company, which is better for the country?

Please think about it.

I am happy you gave a thought here. But the initial argument was not a) Bangladeshi vs b) Machine.

The logic offered by @Mad Indian was how immigrant workers improve efficiency just like mechanization. Here you are assuming that mechanization would not happen if you allow cheap labor. Labor would be replaced as soon as it becomes more profitable to mechanize, 1 or 2 years here or there but you cannot stop it.

Another assumption is that Bangladesh will never develop and keep sending cheap labor. If the labor moves out of Bangladesh, it becomes scarer in Bangladesh and bids up wages there. Also, the remittances sent by Bangladeshi immigrants improve their economy, which again bids up demand for goods and labor in Bangladesh. In the long run, there cannot exist wage differential between two countries which allows migration. So, it cannot go on ad infinitum.

I do not think it is possible to deny gains from flexible labor mobility in general. Indian firms are highly automated as compared to general industry level in China and cheap labor in India has not stopped mechanization. So, mechanization does not only depend on availability or non-availability of cheap labor.

 

[Singh]

FYI:

The illegal Bangladeshis in Delhi are either employed as unskilled labour in informal sector or involved in criminal activity.

The Burmese, much less numerous, otoh have a better reputation and are employed as semiskilled labour again informally.

Both are exploited.

 

[Singh]

I am happy you gave a thought here. But the initial argument was not a) Bangladeshi vs b) Machine.

The logic offered by @Mad Indian was how immigrant workers improve efficiency just like mechanization. Here you are assuming that mechanization would not happen if you allow cheap labor. Labor would be replaced as soon as it becomes more profitable to mechanize, 1 or 2 years here or there but you cannot stop it.

Another assumption is that Bangladesh will never develop and keep sending cheap labor. If the labor moves out of Bangladesh, it becomes scarer in Bangladesh and bids up wages there. Also, the remittances sent by Bangladeshi immigrants improve their economy, which again bids up demand for goods and labor in Bangladesh. In the long run, there cannot exist wage differential between two countries which allows migration. So, it cannot go on ad infinitum.

I do not think it is possible to deny gains from flexible labor mobility in general. Indian firms are highly automated as compared to general industry level in China and cheap labor in India has not stopped mechanization. So, mechanization does not only depend on availability or non-availability of cheap labor.

Lettuce be real tea.

In Delhi nobody hires Bangladeshis unless they have no choice. Bangladeshis live pretty desperate lives here and are badly exploited. No wonder many of them have taken to a life of crime.

 

[Bangalorean]

I am happy you gave a thought here. But the initial argument was not a) Bangladeshi vs b) Machine.

The logic offered by @Mad Indian was how immigrant workers improve efficiency just like mechanization. Here you are assuming that mechanization would not happen if you allow cheap labor. Labor would be replaced as soon as it becomes more profitable to mechanize, 1 or 2 years here or there but you cannot stop it.

Another assumption is that Bangladesh will never develop and keep sending cheap labor. If the labor moves out of Bangladesh, it becomes scarer in Bangladesh and bids up wages there. Also, the remittances sent by Bangladeshi immigrants improve their economy, which again bids up demand for goods and labor in Bangladesh. In the long run, there cannot exist wage differential between two countries which allows migration. So, it cannot go on ad infinitum.

I do not think it is possible to deny gains from flexible labor mobility in general. Indian firms are highly automated as compared to general industry level in China and cheap labor in India has not stopped mechanization. So, mechanization does not only depend on availability or non-availability of cheap labor.

In general, mechanization happens only when the cost of mechanization is significantly less than human labour cost. This is not about Bangladesh in general, so lets keep that out. It is about general labour mobility and migration.

Refer to my example on manual labour versus plastering machine. 10 years later, would you prefer:

a) Hiring 4 Indians at the rate of Rs. 2000/day/labourer for 10 days
b) Hiring 4 immigrants at the rate of Rs. 500/day/labourer for 10 days
c) Renting a plastering machine at the rate of Rs. 10000/day for 3 days (this machine gives a MUCH better finish, much superior quality, than humans can)

Of course option b is the cheapest. But if we actively prevent immigrants, the machine becomes the best option. You will then get better quality, get things done much faster, more efficiently, and save on rentals, interest, etc. Labourers get more and more expensive, and can live a life of dignity, as gradually, labourers are replaced with machines. Those who remain in the field, get paid well.

That is my point.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

In general, mechanization happens only when the cost of mechanization is significantly less than human labour cost. This is not about Bangladesh in general, so lets keep that out. It is about general labour mobility and migration.

Refer to my example on manual labour versus plastering machine. 10 years later, would you prefer:

a) Hiring 4 Indians at the rate of Rs. 2000/day/labourer for 10 days
b) Hiring 4 immigrants at the rate of Rs. 500/day/labourer for 10 days
c) Renting a plastering machine at the rate of Rs. 10000/day for 3 days (this machine gives a MUCH better finish, much superior quality, than humans can)

Of course option b is the cheapest. But if we actively prevent immigrants, the machine becomes the best option. You will then get better quality, get things done much faster, more efficiently, and save on rentals, interest, etc. Labourers get more and more expensive, and can live a life of dignity, as gradually, labourers are replaced with machines. Those who remain in the field, get paid well.

That is my point.

When you talk of quality it makes it a different product. So leave out quality for a moment.

So, you think you can make machines more viable by restricting immigration. Which country became industrialized by killing its labor force? Btw, what will happen to those 4 indians who you throw out of job by using machine? You seem to be ok to replace Indians by machines but not by immigrants!!

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Mechanization occurs keeping life-cycle costs in mind. Indian automobiles or oil refineries are super mechanized. Reason- it is much easier to stop production and keep machines on stand by than fire workers. In Indian context, labor is too difficult to handle. So immigration or no immigration, mechanization would continue.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

FYI:

The illegal Bangladeshis in Delhi are either employed as unskilled labour in informal sector or involved in criminal activity.

The Burmese, much less numerous, otoh have a better reputation and are employed as semiskilled labour again informally.

Both are exploited.

Immigrants bring a lot of other problems with them. Read the thread properly.

We are debating whether throwing out immigrants citing economic reasons makes sense or not.

 

[Mad Indian]

Immigrants bring a lot of other problems with them. Read the thread properly.

We are debating whether throwing out immigrants citing economic reasons makes sense or not.

Exactly! I am not in favor of Bangladeshi immigrants at all. In fact I am completly against their immigration here. The reason I oppose their immigration is because of the socio-political impact it will have on our population( I dont want another partition of my motherland) and not because of some un-founded fear of them being bad for the economy.

This is part is very important because, if ten years down the line, India becomes richer and people from Tibet, Myanmar, or other SE asian nation wants to immigrate here for work, we should happily allow it because they dont cause as much socio political distress as caused by the BD immigrants. In that specific case, restricting immigration from those countries would be very bad for our economy.

 

[Bangalorean]

When you talk of quality it makes it a different product. So leave out quality for a moment.

So, you think you can make machines more viable by restricting immigration. Which country became industrialized by killing its labor force? Btw, what will happen to those 4 indians who you throw out of job by using machine? You seem to be ok to replace Indians by machines but not by immigrants!!

Mechanization occurs keeping life-cycle costs in mind. Indian automobiles or oil refineries are super mechanized. Reason- it is much easier to stop production and keep machines on stand by than fire workers. In Indian context, labor is too difficult to handle. So immigration or no immigration, mechanization would continue.

No, we should not leave out quality.

Machines improve quality, efficiency and speed of getting a task done. So, I am ok with replacing Indians by machines but not by immigrants.

We are in a messy society. Bringing immigrants will keep the mess intact. Mechanization and use of automation, computers, etc. will improve things.

I would like to reiterate: for me, "letting water find its own level" means, "let labour costs increase". It does not mean, "allow immigrants in and keep labour costs down". Labour should eventually become expensive, like in the West. That is when labourers and those who do manual work will have dignity and a dignified existence. That is when society will improve.

That is why I am against immigration - I am not even talking about socio-cultural issues here. We all agree that BDeshis are the last people we want in India, in general.

 

[pmaitra]

I think I broadly agree with @Mad Indian here.

People are confusing here the hypothetical ill-effects of migrants.

1) Did rural Indians not migrate to cities or out of agricultural sector because Bangladeshis were stealing their jobs in cities?
- What is the number of jobs stolen by Bangladeshis that Indians wanted? Does a rural Indian want every low paid job taken up by Bangladeshi?
Just because they take up some jobs does not mean Indians wanted those jobs. May be the concerned Indians are poor but still do not want to migrate and get the job.

2) About the efficiency point of view. I do not think anyone countered the points showing similarity of mechanization and cheap labor. As long as you can get cheap labor it will lead to efficiency increase and will show up somewhere else in the economy. If people save on cheap clothes, may be they spend it on holidays and help someone become a tour guide. It is impossible to track the individual impact.
If you do not allow immigration, may be some jobs will never be created. So, no efficiency increase and no upward mobility with anti-immigration policy.

Most of the times, governments stir up anti-immigration rhetoric for low skilled people because they cannot argue their case well and it is easier to kick them out and score brownie points in front of their own unskilled population. Does it help anyone or how big are the effects are never discussed?

Also, just adding to the logic that there is no huge wage differential between India and Bangladesh, then not many Bangladeshis would migrate to India as the wage gap closes due to immigration. So why worry about it? Let the water find its level!!

Lots of unsupported assumptions here.

How will a person become a tour guide if that person, after looking for a job of a tour guide, discovers that he still has to compete with immigrant tour guides?

Also, those who are buying cheap clothes, are themselves producing something. Say they are producing dairy products, which they have to sell to those making clothes. If those making clothes are getting paid less, they will buy less dairy products, and those dairy producers will not make enough money to save enough for a vacation. So, no new job for a tour guide.

An economic model can be seen as a system of multiple nodes, and money keeps circulating between the nodes. If money supply becomes less, then money velocity will also tend to become less. This will drive down GDP, and increase the risks of deflation.

 

[pmaitra]

No, we should not leave out quality.

Machines improve quality, efficiency and speed of getting a task done. So, I am ok with replacing Indians by machines but not by immigrants.

We are in a messy society. Bringing immigrants will keep the mess intact. Mechanization and use of automation, computers, etc. will improve things.

I would like to reiterate: for me, "letting water find its own level" means, "let labour costs increase". It does not mean, "allow immigrants in and keep labour costs down". Labour should eventually become expensive, like in the West. That is when labourers and those who do manual work will have dignity and a dignified existence. That is when society will improve.

That is why I am against immigration - I am not even talking about socio-cultural issues here. We all agree that BDeshis are the last people we want in India, in general.

By quality, what he meant is we cannot compare two products that are significantly different in quality, because difference in quality makes them different products, but this is subjective, and we can say that efficiency includes improving the quality of products. More or less, this is a gray and subjective area.

Overall, I agree with your points.