Immigration is simply a powerful topic, late raised again in the alleged "public debt". There are different reasons why people change their place of residence, although the most apparent ones come up alone. It is besides clear that immigration issues affect different sides. Politicians are trying to gain popularity with this subject, employers are looking for employees. Foreigners search work and refugees search refuge. The subject could be discussed very widely and each group could devote any space. It is possible to discuss the number of “guests”, the conditions that must be met, the long-term effects of mass immigration, but besides the stories of individuals. I'm going to take any of the topics here myself, and I'm going to halt at others.
Recent events in France after a young arabian policeman was shot and the riots almost taken out of those related to George Floyd's death in the United States reminded many publicists that the subject of mass immigration, assimilation and problems of multicultural societies would not leave us, and from time to time there would be a reason to talk about it more, due to the fact that something that would warm the public will happen. In addition, there has been a subject of relocation of immigrants between EU countries and penalties for not adopting them. Thus, the government has another chance to "shallow" and mobilise the electorate. The 3rd subject is the Regulation on visas and work permits for citizens of countries in the east, in large part Muslim. Here, the government had to retreat from the regulation, and this time the opposition had fuel to show that it was the Law and Justice that brought Muslims in thousands, at the same time shouting that it would not accept lower numbers of people from the EU's order.
It should be mentioned that the foreigners recruited by the government actually come to work here – at the request of employers. This does not mean that I support specified mass inflows of the population, even of proven people, and even to a predetermined work. All I'm saying is that even if it is unreasonable in the long run, to any degree it defends itself temporarily with the interests of the economy or employers. And my objection to specified methods is general alternatively than individual. I will explain in the course of further deliberations. For the sake of clarity, I wanted to put the effects of immigration in 3 categories. The first is safety. Second – the composition of society. 3rd – the structure of the labour market.
Three Effects
As far as safety is concerned, I am referring primarily to the impact of immigration, especially from culturally further muslim areas and countries. Problems with integration and the sense of belonging to a number concentrated in its own districts/gettas or within religion, in the absence of a sense of belonging to the population of the country of settlement, are now problems, for example, in France. Women's problems can besides be mentioned erstwhile Muslim immigrants begin to arrive in the country. There are examples here, but it is not safety that I would like to give more space to.
The question of the composition of society is besides intuitively discussed on its own. Many immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, who, in the position of bringing their household back, are besides statistically many children who (especially born in the country of settlement) can get political rights. Anecdotes are known as the most common name in Oslo is Mohammed. I heard about it about 10 years ago. Of course, you should calm down a small bit, Mohammed's name is definitely more popular for immigrant boys than, for example, the name Anders or Kristian for Native Norwegians. This does not mean that more children are born from immigrant Muslim families than families in "autochthon" families. However, if each Mohammed born in erstwhile years has 2 more children than a native Norwegian at his age, then the origin structure of the society will change in favour of immigrant communities. Apart from Islam and Norway, if we presume that, say 2 million adults, Ukrainians are given electoral rights in Poland, it can be calculated that with 40 million voters (for equal account) they would represent 5% of those entitled to vote. In the "fair" division of seats in the parliament, they should have twenty-three Members. In theory, with specified a result, their representatives could enter the ruling coalition. But in theory, you can imagine a better consequence if the Ukrainian number were well organized and showed evidence attendance. It's just an intellectual exercise, of course, but it shows that even formal offices can come to foreigners if there's enough. The long-term effects of uncontrolled immigration, with reckless distribution of political rights, could lead to the fact that guests could not be overlooked in deciding the most crucial issues.
However, I am most curious in the labour market. Its change through many immigration is not as crucial as the change in the general composition of the society or the anticipation of forming part of the government of an open organization representing the interests of immigrants before native citizens. Immigration can be said to give the labour marketplace many affirmative things. It is hard to disagree with that statement. Immigrants frequently work diligently, undertake work where they are more likely to deficiency volunteers, working legally pay taxes and even with a very cost-effective life they spend something on the spot. From the point of view of pure economics, I do not see any serious arguments for limiting labour immigration. It does not substance whether the work is done by a Pole, Ukrainian or Indian. Work is done, taxes paid.
Only that immigration is specified a crucial and complex phenomenon that treating it as an exclusively economical factor, and detached from another realities, would only explain a passage of reality. However, the issue of immigration should be clarified together with all its problems and under possible (and identifiable) circumstances.
An economical immigrant is frequently a man who comes from a poorer country. In not very fancy words, he doesn't picky, he works a lot, and he tries not to mess with anyone. If he has a dependant in his homeland, he frequently saves as much as he can, lives with his colleagues, sometimes in crowded housing. He's trying to send as much money as he can to his family. You can't blame them or claim they should spend more money on the spot. Polish immigrant in England behaves likewise as Ukrainian in Poland. After a possible household reunion, life - kind changes. An emigrant who comes without a household on the 1 hand may fill a gap in the workplace, but besides does not put much money on the marketplace of the country where he works. It may be the only and weak argument against immigration by looking at it for pure economics.
The issue of security, possible problems with assimilation, the formation of ghettos or the change in the structure of society, or even, in the long term, the anticipation of a large impact of minorities on state policy, is more to address many immigration. However, I would like to put forward arguments against many immigration from a state's perspective, which should first take care of its citizens and the labour market, which will not be hostile to workers.
Work Triangle
It can be said that people are selfish and that individual “groups” care about group interest. The State (government) wants to draw as much money as possible from taxpayers to keep its structures. Employers want to pay as small as possible to employees. Workers want to make as much money as possible and work light as possible. In this "triangle" we deal with different interests. I will effort to present my imagination of how this triangle could work as best as possible. besides in the context of immigrants who “steal work”.
So let's start with this. Migrants can be a salvation from the point of view of the employer and unfair competition in the labour marketplace from the position of the worker. However, it is hard to call an immigrant “the thief of the workplace”. Let us presume that an example Ukrainian in Poland, for example called Sasha, agrees to work for a minimum rate or even under conditions that may leave out the labour code and part of the burden on the employer. Unlike Sasha, the Polish worker, let us give Andrzej, requires a contract of employment and a rate higher than the minimum. Sasha gets a job. Andrzej may resent this to his employer and to Sasha, who was hired instead. However, it would be hard to describe this as “stealing” a position by Sasha. He's just satisfied with a lower salary. The employer has decided who to hire and it is hard for him to wonder that he was guided by low labour costs. So it can be said that no 1 is guilty of this situation, neither Sasha nor the employer. How about you, then?
The state imposes taxes on citizens. Without this, he is incapable to supply public services. It's obvious. It should besides take care of its citizens. These include both employers and employees. Purely theoretically and generally, caring for employers should lead to the fact that business is profitable, the entrepreneur is not strangled by bureaucracy or excessive taxes. He should have the chance to make and reward his employees. Reduce labour costs by any contributions, taxes, etc. It would let for higher amounts to be allocated to employees' salaries.
A possibility, of course, is not certain. Taking care of the individual should lead to a well - paid and full - time occupation life. The introduction of a minimum wage is any kind of force on the employer not to pay besides little. However, truly advanced minimum salaries could lead to the problem of various entrepreneurs who would start moving on to so-called. A grey region and employment for “black”. Even an employer with good intentions may not bear besides many burdens. On the another hand, low minimum salaries (not giving a chance to keep a family) which would not be a problem for the employer will not give the individual stability. And as long as there's individual who accepts that salary, there's no reason for an employer to overpay.
So the problem is complex. Excessive costs prompt an entrepreneur to combine and even break the law. Low wages do not give the individual adequate remuneration. Whether in black or with low legally required salaries, the problem of cheaper competition in the labour marketplace will not be solved in the favour of an example Andrzej. A cheaper worker like Sasha will always have the advantage. For the sake of fairness, it should be mentioned that specified Andrzej in, let us say, the UK plays a akin function as Sasha in Poland. Andrzej in the Islands frequently performs works without advanced qualifications, dense and physical. And local John, for example, doesn't feel like doing this kind of work. At least in the short term, the Andrews fill a gap in the British economy. However, their patching of the economy of large Britain causes a gap or shrinking of the Polish economy and the request to invitation Sasha, or even guests from India, Pakistan or Turkey, who are more exotic than Sasha and can origin a large number more safety problems.
Effects and causes
Andrews leaving for Britain did not go there to save the local economy. Even if the beginning of the marketplace by the local government in 2004 was calculated for specified an effect. Andrei wanted to live a more peaceful life doing average jobs. In Poland, salaries and the anticipation of surviving out of them without tightening the belt was much more difficult. In theory, the mass departure of Andrzejów should origin wage increases, as he begins to deficiency hands to work. But if this gap can be filled by Sasha and this is simply a fast and effective solution, why not. And so the gap in the Polish economy is patched by Ukrainians. They save her temporarily. However, the side effect is that Poland changes its national structure like the United Kingdom. In addition, a certain arrangement is petrified, where the state imposes on employers, they search savings by paying minimum wages and nothing else, either even circumventing them by another forms of employment or even moving to the grey economy. Low salaries origin reluctance to work by locals, possibly further emigrations and the necessity to employment immigrants more desperate than Poles.
Of course, from the employer's point of view, low salaries and low charges (income taxation and another contributions) are the best solution. Contributions and taxes are additional expenditure and in a way this can be compared to the interference of a 3rd party, an entirely unnecessary employer. Like a mob extorting extortion, so the state takes its share of what others have worked out. Forces minimum wages, paid leave. Or possibly the worker doesn't request it at all, and for a higher salary, he'd be satisfied with no insurance, no leave. Especially since any of this money is wasted, wellness care is inefficient, etc. The employer and worker could both gain more by not interfering with the 3rd party. Of course, it is mostly correct thinking. No request to pay individual extra is more money to divided into 2 sides. It's obvious. The problem is, however, that in the situation of the state the minimum and unregulated contracts of the employer with the worker will necessarily be dictated by conditions. In addition to situations where the deficiency is willing to work and salaries request to be raised, the employer is the stronger side. He can give hungry salaries as long as anyone accepts them. Workers stay to strike, but the little qualified their work requires, the easier it is to replace them without gathering demands. Therefore, I am nevertheless in favour of minimum wages, the legal number of vacation days and various labour rights.
In your own Reymont's Promised Land text, I suggested that working conditions in 19th century Łódź were due, among another things, to the belief of the owner. Catholic employers like Kurowski and Trawiński exploited workers little than their judaic competitors. Interesting about the differences in the approach to the business of Catholics and Protestants in Germany in the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries told died in April Krzysztof Karon. Since the beginning of Catholic Social Science, or the celebrated encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891, the Church has advocated against liberalism and communism, advocating for property rights, but against exploitation besides known from the Łódź textile factories of the 19th century. Thomas Storck in “The Distributist Review” He discusses with Tim Busch, a Catholic entrepreneur who, however, professes typically liberal ideas. Busch is an opponent of minimum wages, making 2 main arguments against them. The first is that a low wage motivates the improvement and search for pathways of promotion or the change of work to a better, for better skilled. The second is that through salaries, the minimum part of people will not find work at all. These arguments combine. A better poorly paid job, with which you gain skills and experience, which can aid you find a better occupation than none. And advanced labour costs can discourage employers from creating jobs as they cannot afford to. any will employment “black” and pay small and yet without all (even if they appear to be in the performance of the state) benefits. The disappearance of part or all of the burden would make it easier for employers to make jobs, but whether it would make it more hard to pay. The employer's ethos alone would depend on paying more if he didn't have to, without that, would only force him to have a situation of deficiency of volunteers. Assuming that low wages (forced by the state or not, without meaning) are insufficient to live decently, does this mean that the anticipation of developing and earning more in a better position in the future condemns the exemplary Andrzej to number each gold and sometimes denying himself adequate basic products in the present? What if not everyone has a place to promote? Workers at the worst paid jobs will always be needed. Does this mean that many of them gotta live with poorness for most or their full lives? possibly the strategy that tolerates and enforces it needs correction?
Three systems
In simple pushes we frequently push ourselves into a corner, assuming that there are only 2 options for the economical system: capitalism and socialism. Since both have a strong impact on imagination, disputes are sharp and fear of being accused of favoring the incorrect side, it causes us to accept the perversions typical of a strategy that we consider little evil. Turning into an environment of "conservative liberals", mentioning any state interference in the economy will encounter automatic criticism based on slogans about economical freedom, private advantage over state and the advantages of low taxes. With all these slogans as right, however, it should be kept in head that capitalism is simply a selfish strategy and Adam Smith understood it. Without the limitations we impose on ourselves, most frequently in connection with religion or education in the right environment (which religion has previously shaped), the capitalist will strive to maximize profits and gain advantage over competition. As far as possible, she will strive to become a monopolist.
Socialism is one more time an perfect state monopoly. With all the pathologies of central planning, waste of public resources and what may be most important, without any appeal. In capitalism, the state may sometimes stand by the worker or against him. erstwhile the state is an employer and is the only one, it causes further problems for workers. And of course, the efficiency of this strategy is bad. The argument behind socialism is just anti-capitalist slogans to defend workers from greedy capitalists. In environments that tend to be more employee-oriented, all the hopelessness of socialism is forgotten, due to the fact that it is better than exploitation by capitalists.
Systems can be invented more and various proposals fell. 1 of them was distributionism (also called distributionism[1]), whose most celebrated promoters were Hilaire Belloc and Gilbert Keith Chesterton. In short, distributionism assumed to make something akin to medieval conditions, where universal tiny property was on the agenda. Thus, the tiny farmer, the miller, the carpenter were independent, though not necessarily rich. The advantage of specified a strategy was to work “on your own” without having to search jobs. Your own field or home workshop made it unnecessary to commute to work, and your own business was the best motivation to try. Chesterton, for his part, wrote that capitalism of the early 20th century should be called proletarianism, due to the fact that proletariat was the vast majority of society. The capitalists were comparatively few. And besides that it is simply a large tragedy that most people work for low wages on the wealth of the fewer who have the advantage over them[2].
Distributionism so has the features of a strategy that are precious to me. It is about individual and real freedom. Unlike socialism, it is not a strategy where the individual is officially hoarded, but is not offered freedom or a decent life, and the full strategy has no signs of performance and in time leads to misery. Unlike capitalism, he respects an worker and even a tiny entrepreneur, he puts himself to the task of empowering everyone by enabling them to have specified a dignified minimum that is adequate for a decent life erstwhile they work honestly. Many tiny entrepreneurs operate locally, making the formation of oligopolies and monopolies difficult, leading to typical exploitation of the weaker and desperate by the wealthy and strong in the market.
The transition to specified or akin promoted values of the strategy would require intellectual work and sensible reforms. surely the steps that would increase the chances of smaller players have fragmented ownership in many areas are worth taking.
Still about immigration
Some kind of strategy adjustment is definitely necessary. In conclusion, I would like to point out that in the relation between the state-employee and the employer-to-worker, we should act carefully. The state should give employers space without burdening them with labour costs and bureaucratic requirements. However, it should besides give employees any legal minimum protection against exploitation (minimum wage, paid leave). It is not to be expected that the employer will rise salaries on his own if he does not have to. The State should guarantee compliance and be a good law. As far as immigration is concerned, it is crucial to be careful to invitation many abroad workers to rescue the economy temporarily. I think immigration should be reduced. However, in order not to fire the kid with a bath and not lead to a shrinking economy, solutions should be introduced to encourage Poles to return to the country. The anticipation of a decent occupation is simply a basis without which it is hard to number on mass return. The problem is multifaceted and much harder to find solutions than to item any problems. However, immigration is not the solution. Immigration is simply a tool to stay unchanged, to exploit the fact that workers with lower requirements will find themselves. The immigrants themselves are not guilty of anything. They want a better life and accept worse conditions, which are inactive better than in their countries. It is the authorities who should take care of the better lives of citizens. alternatively than paying abroad companies to build large factories, which can then be glistened before the elections, it would be more crucial to make a man pay decently, not overpaying for a home or apartment, and not just filling pockets for bankers who lend out on interest. The free marketplace alone will not solve these problems. We're at any point where individual has the advantage, and another is on top of him. Even reasonable taxation cuts will not do much if we cut corners and patch the labour marketplace holes with inexpensive “gastarbeiters” erstwhile this problem can be utilized to advance repatriation. You'd gotta invest in it and think about it, but it's worth going into action.
[1] Read more about dystybujonism in John Posadze’s article https://myściwożerenna.pl/postasy-distribution-medieval-idea-future/
[2] Thoughts from the text “The planet of the Najmits” in the collection “The defence of Faith”. Fronda Publishing, 2012.
