If taken to mean just allow income-maximizing (for residents) levels of immigration and there would be no problem from falling fertility rates, I agree 100%. There are many such things that should be done. But allowing income maximizing levels of immigration would still be a good thing, however much or little it addressed the demographic transition.
I'm a fan of more children (I subscribe here, of course, and have two) but I think the immigration modelling and description are overly pessimistic. I'm also an immigrant myself (from Canada to the UK), so am a bit biased, but I think the facts support me.
In the "migration, stagnation, and procreation" document, they describe a 14 percent first gen immigrant as being the highest experimented with, but Canada currently has 23 percent first generation immigrants as a proportion of the population and, other than a dramatic and unnecessary own goal on housing, is a peaceful society with high tolerance and a high standard of living.
The document also stresses the impact of immigration on inequality and stratification, which may be true for those first generation immigrants, but
1) They're dramatically better off than they would have been in their home countries, even if they're lower class in the recipient country, so the welfare argument doesn't work; and
2) That inequality often evens out by the second generation; loads of immigrants accept lower status work in the new country explicitly because they believe their children will live a better life, and are generally correct about that.
One more point the document fails to make is that we know how to create mass immigration societies and stagnation societies, but we have *no idea* how to create high (or even stable) fertility societies (which I accept is part of the job of this substack). I suspect policy will be part of it (housing being perhaps the biggest single factor), but I don't think it will be enough (albeit housing is a worthy goal on its own regardless).
If taken to mean just allow income-maximizing (for residents) levels of immigration and there would be no problem from falling fertility rates, I agree 100%. There are many such things that should be done. But allowing income maximizing levels of immigration would still be a good thing, however much or little it addressed the demographic transition.
I'm a fan of more children (I subscribe here, of course, and have two) but I think the immigration modelling and description are overly pessimistic. I'm also an immigrant myself (from Canada to the UK), so am a bit biased, but I think the facts support me.
In the "migration, stagnation, and procreation" document, they describe a 14 percent first gen immigrant as being the highest experimented with, but Canada currently has 23 percent first generation immigrants as a proportion of the population and, other than a dramatic and unnecessary own goal on housing, is a peaceful society with high tolerance and a high standard of living.
The document also stresses the impact of immigration on inequality and stratification, which may be true for those first generation immigrants, but
1) They're dramatically better off than they would have been in their home countries, even if they're lower class in the recipient country, so the welfare argument doesn't work; and
2) That inequality often evens out by the second generation; loads of immigrants accept lower status work in the new country explicitly because they believe their children will live a better life, and are generally correct about that.
One more point the document fails to make is that we know how to create mass immigration societies and stagnation societies, but we have *no idea* how to create high (or even stable) fertility societies (which I accept is part of the job of this substack). I suspect policy will be part of it (housing being perhaps the biggest single factor), but I don't think it will be enough (albeit housing is a worthy goal on its own regardless).