Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/69640cff-e5e0-8003-a8d1-a78b118ca18b
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== Three things I think are most often missing in public discourse (and sometimes even in narrow academic summaries): ==== # Prices and task allocation matter a lot for welfare. A wage-only lens misses that low-skilled immigration can reduce prices of local services and change task specialization. UK price evidence supports at least some of this mechanism. # Local public-service strains are real welfare issues even if national averages look fine. The NHS evidence is a nice example: small average effects, but short-run increases in deprived areas. If those local strains aren’t funded/managed, you can get real welfare losses even if the national accounting looks positive. # “Low-skilled” at entry ≠ “low productivity” forever. Credential recognition and language barriers can create large “brain waste” and keep people in low-wage roles longer than is efficient; reducing that friction can convert migration into clearer productivity and fiscal gains (and reduce distributional conflict). Policy levers that (in my view) most plausibly raise net welfare from lower-paid migration without relying on wishful thinking: * Housing supply responsiveness (planning, build-out constraints). This converts what would be congestion/scarcity into real expansion rather than just price redistribution. * Targeted funding formulas for local services in high-inflow areas (schools, GP capacity, transport). * Credential recognition and language training to speed match quality and wage growth. * Labour standards enforcement (reduce monopsony/exploitation), which can both protect low-paid natives and raise tax receipts without needing to reduce inflows. If you want, I can also sketch a simple welfare decomposition (immigration surplus + price effects + fiscal distortion term + public-good congestion term) and map each term to the UK evidence above, but the qualitative conclusion would stay: small average net gains, meaningful distributional and local effects, and productivity is the pivotal uncertainty.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)