Immigration Economy: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

~~== Question ==~~

''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''

Immigration and the economy

Across studies and political contexts, researchers generally agree that immigration has both measurable benefits and measurable costs for host economies. The size and distribution of each depend on the migrants’ age structure, skills, legal status, and the host country’s labour-market and welfare institutions.

Aggregate growth

* A steady inflow of working-age migrants expands the labour force and can help slow population aging, thereby supporting GDP growth [1][2].

* In the European Union, modelling by economists for the European Commission projects that keeping net migration close to present levels would raise the bloc’s average growth rate by around 0.2–0.3 pp per year over the next two decades, largely because migrants are younger than natives and have higher employment rates than is often assumed [2].

* Historical evidence from the United States shows that the average immigrant household catches up to natives in income and tax contributions within one generation, contributing to productivity growth through entrepreneurship and occupational mobility [1].

Fiscal impact

* The net fiscal balance (taxes paid minus transfers received) is usually positive for recently arrived, prime-age workers but can turn negative when large shares of newcomers are dependants or reach retirement age [2].

* EU simulations find that if newcomers resemble the current migrant stock the average lifetime fiscal contribution is slightly positive; under a “low-integration” scenario, the same cohort would create a small deficit, suggesting that labour-market integration is the decisive variable rather than sheer numbers [2].

* Refugee intakes can be an exception. A case study on the hypothetical resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in high-income countries estimates a per-capita fiscal cost of roughly €16,000 in the first five years, driven by housing, language training, and welfare outlays [3]. The author argues that these costs would outweigh near-term growth benefits unless complemented by fast-track work-permit policies [3].

Distributional effects

* Low-skilled natives in directly competing occupations can experience downward wage pressure, while complementary workers and capital owners benefit from lower production costs [1].

* Regions with flexible labour markets and portable welfare benefits see quicker convergence in employment rates between immigrants and natives, narrowing distributional tensions [2].

Points of controversy

* Optimistic assessments highlight the long-run growth payoff and the historically demonstrated capacity of migrants to assimilate economically [1].

* Sceptical accounts focus on short-run fiscal burdens when large humanitarian inflows arrive faster than housing and job-matching systems can adjust [3].

* All sources agree that policy choices—language training, credential recognition, welfare conditionality—are pivotal in turning potential net costs into net gains [2][3].

Timeline of public discourse (selected milestones)

* 1990s: OECD labour-market papers begin quantifying small but positive GDP effects from post-Cold-War migration; debate largely academic.

* 2005–2015: EU enlargements and the 2015 refugee crisis shift the spotlight to fiscal impacts; several governments commission dynamic-simulation studies, culminating in the Commission’s 2018 “net fiscal impact” projections [2].

* 2016–2020: US presidential campaigns revive the assimilation debate; think-tank studies stress the inter-generational economic mobility of immigrants [1].

* 2023: Conflicts in the Middle East rekindle discussion on large-scale refugee resettlement. Cost estimates for absorbing Palestinian refugees circulate widely online, fuelling scepticism about fiscal capacity in high-debt economies [3].

* 2024-present: Policymakers weigh sector-specific labour shortages against housing constraints; emphasis shifts from “how many” migrants to “how productive” their integration can be.

I immigration ~~good for~~ the ~~economy?~~

Conclusion

When migrants are quickly integrated into the labour market, immigration is usually a net economic positive. Where integration lags or intake is dominated by dependants, short-to-medium-term fiscal deficits can emerge. The divergence in findings among the cited authors reflects differing assumptions about integration speed rather than disagreement over the underlying mechanisms.

== Sources ==

#https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-assimilation-myth-america

#https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-immigration-eu_en

#https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/taking-in-palestinian-refugees-is

~~https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-assimilation-myth-america~~

== Question ==

~~https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-~~immigration~~-eu_en~~

Is immigration good for the economy?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Question ==
+''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''
+Immigration and the economy
+Across studies and political contexts, researchers generally agree that immigration has both measurable benefits and measurable costs for host economies. The size and distribution of each depend on the migrants’ age structure, skills, legal status, and the host country’s labour-market and welfare institutions.
+Aggregate growth
+* A steady inflow of working-age migrants expands the labour force and can help slow population aging, thereby supporting GDP growth [1][2].
+* In the European Union, modelling by economists for the European Commission projects that keeping net migration close to present levels would raise the bloc’s average growth rate by around 0.2–0.3 pp per year over the next two decades, largely because migrants are younger than natives and have higher employment rates than is often assumed [2].
+* Historical evidence from the United States shows that the average immigrant household catches up to natives in income and tax contributions within one generation, contributing to productivity growth through entrepreneurship and occupational mobility [1].
+Fiscal impact
+* The net fiscal balance (taxes paid minus transfers received) is usually positive for recently arrived, prime-age workers but can turn negative when large shares of newcomers are dependants or reach retirement age [2].
+* EU simulations find that if newcomers resemble the current migrant stock the average lifetime fiscal contribution is slightly positive; under a “low-integration” scenario, the same cohort would create a small deficit, suggesting that labour-market integration is the decisive variable rather than sheer numbers [2].
+* Refugee intakes can be an exception. A case study on the hypothetical resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in high-income countries estimates a per-capita fiscal cost of roughly €16,000 in the first five years, driven by housing, language training, and welfare outlays [3]. The author argues that these costs would outweigh near-term growth benefits unless complemented by fast-track work-permit policies [3].
+Distributional effects
+* Low-skilled natives in directly competing occupations can experience downward wage pressure, while complementary workers and capital owners benefit from lower production costs [1].
+* Regions with flexible labour markets and portable welfare benefits see quicker convergence in employment rates between immigrants and natives, narrowing distributional tensions [2].
+Points of controversy
+* Optimistic assessments highlight the long-run growth payoff and the historically demonstrated capacity of migrants to assimilate economically [1].
+* Sceptical accounts focus on short-run fiscal burdens when large humanitarian inflows arrive faster than housing and job-matching systems can adjust [3].
+* All sources agree that policy choices—language training, credential recognition, welfare conditionality—are pivotal in turning potential net costs into net gains [2][3].
+Timeline of public discourse (selected milestones)
+* 1990s: OECD labour-market papers begin quantifying small but positive GDP effects from post-Cold-War migration; debate largely academic.
+* 2005–2015: EU enlargements and the 2015 refugee crisis shift the spotlight to fiscal impacts; several governments commission dynamic-simulation studies, culminating in the Commission’s 2018 “net fiscal impact” projections [2].
+* 2016–2020: US presidential campaigns revive the assimilation debate; think-tank studies stress the inter-generational economic mobility of immigrants [1].
+* 2023: Conflicts in the Middle East rekindle discussion on large-scale refugee resettlement. Cost estimates for absorbing Palestinian refugees circulate widely online, fuelling scepticism about fiscal capacity in high-debt economies [3].
+* 2024-present: Policymakers weigh sector-specific labour shortages against housing constraints; emphasis shifts from “how many” migrants to “how productive” their integration can be.
-I immigration good for the economy?
+Conclusion
+When migrants are quickly integrated into the labour market, immigration is usually a net economic positive. Where integration lags or intake is dominated by dependants, short-to-medium-term fiscal deficits can emerge. The divergence in findings among the cited authors reflects differing assumptions about integration speed rather than disagreement over the underlying mechanisms.
 == Sources ==
+#https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-assimilation-myth-america
+#https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-immigration-eu_en
+#https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/taking-in-palestinian-refugees-is
-https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-assimilation-myth-america
+== Question ==
-https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-immigration-eu_en
+Is immigration good for the economy?