This analysis ignores wars and extreme economic crises in the countries of origin. In such circumstances, migration will be very rapid, and there will always be countries for which these are the circumstances.
Brian, from your data there is as many Puerto Ricans in the US as in Puerto Rico. In your post you also state that you would expect the process to be faster today than the 100 years it took for that migration to happen. If we had open borders with India, how many Indians do you think there would there be in the United States in 50 years?
I noticed the same thing in the EU: The nominal GDP per cap of Luxembourg is eight times that of Bulgaria! Yet, there are still Bulgarians living in Bulgaria! hWhy haven't they all moved to Luxembourg?
Cost of living explains some of it: The GDP PPP per capita of Luxembourg is only 4.24 times as high as the GDP PPP per capita of Bulgaria.
Another factor, is, as Collier mentioned, the level of income in the countries of origin. I'd imagine that people from desperately poor countries rush to immigrate, hwhereas people from countries that are doing alright, aren't in such a hurry, even if there are richer countries out there. You don't see that many New Zealanders rushing to Ireland, for example. The GDP PPP per capita of Bulgaria sits at $33,780 in 2023. Not too shabby. My definition of a "rich" country is a country whose GDP PPP per cap is equivalent to $20,000 year 2000 USD. So, that's $35,389.31 in 2023. Bulgaria is ALMOST there! So, they are not so poor anymore. And I'd imagine many of them are now rich! Good for them!
Interestingly, if you look at the net migration patterns for Bulgaria, the net migration rate was the lowest (therefore the new EMigration rate was the highest) in 1993. Right after their first democratic elections. A lot of people left the former Eastern bloc right after the fall of Communism. I have a few theories: people scared of rapid change, some criminals and corrupt politicians took advantage but mostly the easing of emigration restrictions finally allowed people to leave. Many had been wanting and waiting to leave for years. Now they finally could! Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. Some countries allowed Bulgarians to live and work there right away. Others, including Germany, Luxembourg and the UK, made them wait until 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
But you don't see a huge jump in the Bulgarian migration rate in those years. In fact, emigration from Bulgaria SLOWED during this period, instead of accelerating. Bulgarian emigration is slowly increasing again but very slowly.
Germany makes sense. Close to Bulgaria. Not as rich as Luxembourg but still pretty rich. Also bigger in land and population than Luxembourg so more opportunities.
But Spain... Richer than Bulgaria. But not that much. Rather far from Bulgaria too. But, idk... Nice weather? Let them in since 2009, unlike Germany and Luxembourg? Interestingly, there wasn't a huge jump in Bulgarians moving to Spain in 2009. But there was a relatively big jump in 2008, a year before they were all allowed to! Also, interestingly, the number of Bulgarians in Spain has been decreasing after hitting a peak in 2012. I wonder hwhy...
Chain Migration shows how important it is not to let them even get a foot in the door. Whenever you let one in, it's inevitable you are letting in their siblings, cousins, wives, too. Individuals don't migrate in the long run, whole kin groups do.
That's part of the problem with merit based immigration. You let in one smart guy and he helps his less smart co-ethnics get in.
Meh, I don't see the problem with low-skilled immigration. A lot of the middle class would benefit from cheaper maids, nannies and carpenters. Some low-skilled natives would suffer. But, generally, they would suffer less than low-skilled immigrants would gain.
hWhy should I value low-skilled fellow native-born citizens over low-skilled foreigners?
Take the hobbles off the American lower class. Make it lawful to work for cash, for both employers and employees. Reduce the friction in the formal economy to reduce the size of the informal economy.
Agreed. But pretty sure working for cash is already legal. You just got to report it on your income taxes.
But hwhile we're at it, let's take some more hobbles off the labour market: Let's allow employers to hire hwhomever they want, even if they were born in another country and not the ONLY qualified applicant, just the most qualified applicant. Or simply willing to work for less than other applicants. Allow competition. Not central planning.
That makes it illegal. Payroll accounting is a full time job for a specialist. I want to end payroll taxes entirely for low end labor.
People hire because the product of the labor is worth more than the cost. Payroll taxes and associated expenses raise the cost of labor. In the low end it easily exceeds the marginal value of that labor. Thus the informal labor market; people doing work which would be perfectly fine if it were taxed, but which would then be too expensive. Citizens would easily outcompete illegal immigrants on a level playing field.
Pretty sure less accounting expenses is not the reason hwhy people hire illegal immigrants over citizens. Many Citizens are perfectly willing to work for cash.
And it's not illegal to pay them cash. If you hire Jim to help you build your deck, you can just say he's a "contractor" and pay him cash and not worry about paperwork. Even if Jim is a US citizen. It is his responsibility as a "contractor" to file his taxes. Oh sure, it's illegal for him to not report that income and not pay taxes on it. But he's unlikely to get caught.
Just as unlikely to get caught as Miguel, who also doesn't file or pay taxes on the income. So, yea, it's already an even playing field.
In fact, the "playing field" is actually biased in favour of Americans. In the unlikely event that Jim gets caught for not filing or paying his taxes on a bit of cash income, he might face hwhat? A few hundred dollars in penalties from the IRS for a first offense? He will probably not get any jail time or a criminal record and will certainly not lose his right to work in the US.
But, if Miguel is caught, he will be deported. He will no longer be able to work in the US. He'll have to go back to working in Honduras for 75 cents per hour. If he is caught, he will suffer far far worse than Jim.
Likewise, if Miguel was caught working for you, as an illegal immigrant, you could face a $5000 fine. If Jim is caught working for you, as a contractor, he might get a lecture from some labour board employee about his rights and his risks of working as a contractor instead of an employee which might encourage him to quit. But you would probably not face any penalties, per se. Just the labour board employee might shake his head at you.
No, people don't hire illegal immigrants cause it's less paperwork than hiring citizens. People hire illegal immigrants cause they're willing to work for less.
If Jim was standing outside the Home depot at 6 AM and was willing to work for $5 per hour, same as Miguel, you'd probably hire Jim. At least Jim speaks English.
But let's face it. Jim is not willing to work for $5 per hour. Miguel is. So that is why you hire Miguel instead of Jim.
The USA entered a period of “stagflation” shortly after the IRS computerized, in the’70s. Tax enforcement tightened up considerably. Fluffy and Spot disappeared from lists of dependents. Lawn care and maid service companies went out of business.They are only now coming back. I suggest that the informal economy contracted sharply directly because of tightened tax enforcement.
"benefit from cheaper maids, nannies and carpenters"
There is no such thing as "cheap". Low wages = government subsidy. Those maids are on Medicaid, send their kids to public schools their taxes could never afford to fund, will receive government retirement, dilute existing capital, etc.
The "real price" of cheap labor is dramatically higher then the sticker price.
The middle class would be better off with fewer parasites to support. Taxes would be lower and many goods would be cheaper (housing, etc). The middle class would come out ahead. Their goods consumption basket would better reflect real market prices rather than government prices.
"Why should I value low-skilled fellow native-born citizens over low-skilled foreigners?"
They are citizens with voting rights based on their and their ancestors service to the body politic, and therefore they get a say in how society is structured. Immigrants do not have such rights.
Further, native whites vote and behave better than immigrants. Wherever immigrants go they vote in the left and governance becomes highly dysfunctional (California, most of our cities, etc).
Speaking of wars, one interesting thing to note wrt Open Borders is that if the US was to, say, triple its population to Yglesias' dream of 1 trillion, then geopolitics will become a "solved" problem. There'll be zero discussions of China flipping the US with equalized demographic mass. The world will be made for liberal democracy hegemony.
This analysis ignores wars and extreme economic crises in the countries of origin. In such circumstances, migration will be very rapid, and there will always be countries for which these are the circumstances.
Yea. Like the Irish Potato famine accelerated emigration for the Irish. Good point.
Brian, from your data there is as many Puerto Ricans in the US as in Puerto Rico. In your post you also state that you would expect the process to be faster today than the 100 years it took for that migration to happen. If we had open borders with India, how many Indians do you think there would there be in the United States in 50 years?
https://youtu.be/hoQEddtFN3Q?si=Mi5mv-Q-uilDE37z
(somebody had to!)
I noticed the same thing in the EU: The nominal GDP per cap of Luxembourg is eight times that of Bulgaria! Yet, there are still Bulgarians living in Bulgaria! hWhy haven't they all moved to Luxembourg?
Cost of living explains some of it: The GDP PPP per capita of Luxembourg is only 4.24 times as high as the GDP PPP per capita of Bulgaria.
Another factor, is, as Collier mentioned, the level of income in the countries of origin. I'd imagine that people from desperately poor countries rush to immigrate, hwhereas people from countries that are doing alright, aren't in such a hurry, even if there are richer countries out there. You don't see that many New Zealanders rushing to Ireland, for example. The GDP PPP per capita of Bulgaria sits at $33,780 in 2023. Not too shabby. My definition of a "rich" country is a country whose GDP PPP per cap is equivalent to $20,000 year 2000 USD. So, that's $35,389.31 in 2023. Bulgaria is ALMOST there! So, they are not so poor anymore. And I'd imagine many of them are now rich! Good for them!
Interestingly, if you look at the net migration patterns for Bulgaria, the net migration rate was the lowest (therefore the new EMigration rate was the highest) in 1993. Right after their first democratic elections. A lot of people left the former Eastern bloc right after the fall of Communism. I have a few theories: people scared of rapid change, some criminals and corrupt politicians took advantage but mostly the easing of emigration restrictions finally allowed people to leave. Many had been wanting and waiting to leave for years. Now they finally could! Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. Some countries allowed Bulgarians to live and work there right away. Others, including Germany, Luxembourg and the UK, made them wait until 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
But you don't see a huge jump in the Bulgarian migration rate in those years. In fact, emigration from Bulgaria SLOWED during this period, instead of accelerating. Bulgarian emigration is slowly increasing again but very slowly.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/BGR/bulgaria/net-migration
Interestingly, there are very few Bulgarians in Luxembourg! Too few for statistiques.lu to even mention! https://statistiques.public.lu/en/recensement/nationalites.html
Bulgarians prefer Germany and Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_diaspora
Germany makes sense. Close to Bulgaria. Not as rich as Luxembourg but still pretty rich. Also bigger in land and population than Luxembourg so more opportunities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians_in_Germany
But Spain... Richer than Bulgaria. But not that much. Rather far from Bulgaria too. But, idk... Nice weather? Let them in since 2009, unlike Germany and Luxembourg? Interestingly, there wasn't a huge jump in Bulgarians moving to Spain in 2009. But there was a relatively big jump in 2008, a year before they were all allowed to! Also, interestingly, the number of Bulgarians in Spain has been decreasing after hitting a peak in 2012. I wonder hwhy...
Chain Migration shows how important it is not to let them even get a foot in the door. Whenever you let one in, it's inevitable you are letting in their siblings, cousins, wives, too. Individuals don't migrate in the long run, whole kin groups do.
That's part of the problem with merit based immigration. You let in one smart guy and he helps his less smart co-ethnics get in.
You don't import people, you rehome bloodlines.
Meh, I don't see the problem with low-skilled immigration. A lot of the middle class would benefit from cheaper maids, nannies and carpenters. Some low-skilled natives would suffer. But, generally, they would suffer less than low-skilled immigrants would gain.
hWhy should I value low-skilled fellow native-born citizens over low-skilled foreigners?
We’re stuck with each other.
Take the hobbles off the American lower class. Make it lawful to work for cash, for both employers and employees. Reduce the friction in the formal economy to reduce the size of the informal economy.
Agreed. But pretty sure working for cash is already legal. You just got to report it on your income taxes.
But hwhile we're at it, let's take some more hobbles off the labour market: Let's allow employers to hire hwhomever they want, even if they were born in another country and not the ONLY qualified applicant, just the most qualified applicant. Or simply willing to work for less than other applicants. Allow competition. Not central planning.
That makes it illegal. Payroll accounting is a full time job for a specialist. I want to end payroll taxes entirely for low end labor.
People hire because the product of the labor is worth more than the cost. Payroll taxes and associated expenses raise the cost of labor. In the low end it easily exceeds the marginal value of that labor. Thus the informal labor market; people doing work which would be perfectly fine if it were taxed, but which would then be too expensive. Citizens would easily outcompete illegal immigrants on a level playing field.
Pretty sure less accounting expenses is not the reason hwhy people hire illegal immigrants over citizens. Many Citizens are perfectly willing to work for cash.
And it's not illegal to pay them cash. If you hire Jim to help you build your deck, you can just say he's a "contractor" and pay him cash and not worry about paperwork. Even if Jim is a US citizen. It is his responsibility as a "contractor" to file his taxes. Oh sure, it's illegal for him to not report that income and not pay taxes on it. But he's unlikely to get caught.
Just as unlikely to get caught as Miguel, who also doesn't file or pay taxes on the income. So, yea, it's already an even playing field.
In fact, the "playing field" is actually biased in favour of Americans. In the unlikely event that Jim gets caught for not filing or paying his taxes on a bit of cash income, he might face hwhat? A few hundred dollars in penalties from the IRS for a first offense? He will probably not get any jail time or a criminal record and will certainly not lose his right to work in the US.
But, if Miguel is caught, he will be deported. He will no longer be able to work in the US. He'll have to go back to working in Honduras for 75 cents per hour. If he is caught, he will suffer far far worse than Jim.
Likewise, if Miguel was caught working for you, as an illegal immigrant, you could face a $5000 fine. If Jim is caught working for you, as a contractor, he might get a lecture from some labour board employee about his rights and his risks of working as a contractor instead of an employee which might encourage him to quit. But you would probably not face any penalties, per se. Just the labour board employee might shake his head at you.
No, people don't hire illegal immigrants cause it's less paperwork than hiring citizens. People hire illegal immigrants cause they're willing to work for less.
If Jim was standing outside the Home depot at 6 AM and was willing to work for $5 per hour, same as Miguel, you'd probably hire Jim. At least Jim speaks English.
But let's face it. Jim is not willing to work for $5 per hour. Miguel is. So that is why you hire Miguel instead of Jim.
The USA entered a period of “stagflation” shortly after the IRS computerized, in the’70s. Tax enforcement tightened up considerably. Fluffy and Spot disappeared from lists of dependents. Lawn care and maid service companies went out of business.They are only now coming back. I suggest that the informal economy contracted sharply directly because of tightened tax enforcement.
Payroll accounting, especially for a small business, is expensive in the one thing in shortest supply; _the owner’s time._
"benefit from cheaper maids, nannies and carpenters"
There is no such thing as "cheap". Low wages = government subsidy. Those maids are on Medicaid, send their kids to public schools their taxes could never afford to fund, will receive government retirement, dilute existing capital, etc.
The "real price" of cheap labor is dramatically higher then the sticker price.
The middle class would be better off with fewer parasites to support. Taxes would be lower and many goods would be cheaper (housing, etc). The middle class would come out ahead. Their goods consumption basket would better reflect real market prices rather than government prices.
"Why should I value low-skilled fellow native-born citizens over low-skilled foreigners?"
They are citizens with voting rights based on their and their ancestors service to the body politic, and therefore they get a say in how society is structured. Immigrants do not have such rights.
Further, native whites vote and behave better than immigrants. Wherever immigrants go they vote in the left and governance becomes highly dysfunctional (California, most of our cities, etc).
Speaking of wars, one interesting thing to note wrt Open Borders is that if the US was to, say, triple its population to Yglesias' dream of 1 trillion, then geopolitics will become a "solved" problem. There'll be zero discussions of China flipping the US with equalized demographic mass. The world will be made for liberal democracy hegemony.
Have you written about OB from this frame?
“ Open borders wouldn’t lead to instant “swamping.” Instead, we’d see the Puerto Rican experience writ large.”
So it’s kind of like a slow growing cancer, rather than a fast one, but the patient still dies from it.
In addition to what @Tamritz says, this table plainly looks for me like (delayed) swamping.