The new head of the U.N.'s migration agency said Monday that the private sector is “desperate” for their countries to take in migrants to mop up labor shortages, especially in the West — endeavoring to steer a narrative away from reticence and suspicion about migrants in many parts of the world.
Amy Pope, the first woman to head the International Organization for Migration, sought to play up the economic benefits of migration for rich nations with aging populations and declining workforces — in the face of “build-the-wall” rhetoric in the United States to block migrants from Latin America and right-wing movements in Europe that want to keep foreigners out.
”We hear from … the private sector globally, but especially in Europe and in North America, that they are desperate for migration in order to meet their own labor market needs and in order to continue to fuel innovation within their own companies,” Pope, who is American, told reporters.
She said the evidence was “fairly overwhelming” that migration benefits economies by filling jobs, powering innovation or “fueling the renovation or revitalization of aging communities.”
they are desperate for migration in order to meet their own labor market needs
Once again, it’s not a labor shortage, it’s a wahe shortage.
There’s plenty of people who would take a job if it paid adequately and if the conditions weren’t as abusive.
In some countries it is a labor shortage as not every nation has a supply of people not working who could fill those jobs.
“The difference today is that 30 of the biggest economies have experienced very significant labor shortages — and we are seeing it everywhere,” she said, adding that agriculture, construction, health care and hospitality were among the sectors affected.
“Labor shortages”.
Let’s look for commonalities between those sectors.
Agriculture: long hours, back-breaking labor, little upward mobility, dangerous, long-term health issues, often terrible management
Construction: long hours, back-breaking labor, little upward mobility, dangerous, long-term health issues, often terrible management
Health-care: long hours, back-breaking labor, little upward mobility, dangerous, potential long-term health issues, PTSD, often terrible management, difficult patents (who are anything but patient)
Hospitality: long hours, little upward mobility, potentially dangerous, often terrible management, difficult clientele
So, when looking at a job market that has a shortage, people are no longer having to take these jobs due to failing to secure ones with better work descriptions, and they haven’t been prioritizing these for a long time.
The biggest reason is that people understand the risks involved with these jobs now, especially as a lifer. And they’re no longer giving lifer offers.
If you want people to flock or prioritize these jobs you offer more money. This is a negotiation between the general public and the job opportunities. The people with jobs to fill need to be competitive with all the other prospects a potential worker is considering.
If an IT firm that requires little to no experience is offering $15 an hour to start, those jobs need to be at $30. If that’s still not enough? Well the general public balked at the offer. $40. Keep going until people come back.
It doesn’t matter if there aren’t enough people to fill all these jobs and all the other ones, you need to beat them with competitive packages to get them to come. Then offer pensions to get them to stay.
It’s a negotiation and they’re losing and throwing a pity party then saying the government needs to bring in immigrants.
I’m not against the last point. Not in the slightest. What I’m against is treating immigrants as if they’re less than anyone else in the country. As if they’re brought in to do all the shit the people don’t find appealing.
They should be brought in as equals.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Amy Pope, the first woman to head the International Organization for Migration, sought to play up the economic benefits of migration for rich nations with aging populations and declining workforces — in the face of “build-the-wall” rhetoric in the United States to block migrants from Latin America and right-wing movements in Europe that want to keep foreigners out.
She said the evidence was “fairly overwhelming” that migration benefits economies by filling jobs, powering innovation or “fueling the renovation or revitalization of aging communities.”
Governments who open up to migration often do so at their political peril: The Biden administration — which strongly supported Pope’s candidacy — recently gave work permits to nearly 500,000 Venezuelans, whose home country has been in economic and political turmoil in recent years to help get them to work, pay taxes and stop being a burden on public finances.
But critics insist such policies are likely to encourage migrants to flock to the United States, and say they take manual and blue-collar jobs and put downward pressure on wages.
“The difference today is that 30 of the biggest economies have experienced very significant labor shortages — and we are seeing it everywhere,” she said, adding that agriculture, construction, health care and hospitality were among the sectors affected.
Pope said her first trip abroad in the job will be to East Africa, where drought and the impacts of climate change have driven many to flee.
The original article contains 562 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I wish countries would focus on increasing their native birthrates (because that’s a sign of deeper underlying problems in a society) rather than use immigration as a band-aid to fix labor shortage issues.
Why? If people want to be child free, let them. If people want to move to my country, let them
I wasn’t implying the government should force people to have kids. I meant improve conditions that makes it easier for families to raise kids.
How would you achieve that? And does it really matter if it’s “natives”?
On the other hand, does the world really need more people to support? Is it not better to let people move to where they are needed instead?
Immigration has a massive net gain for countries. It’s the racists who don’t like them.
Immigration is a massive net gain for companies. It’s a massive net loss for workers wages as demand lowers, leading to entire industries of exploitation like agricultural labor.
That is not the fault of immigration, and immigration should be encouraged. They’re no different then the people born there.
Your right it’s not the fault of immigration, but until we solve capitalism we shouldn’t be promoting it.
No you’re just being outright racist. If you think we should stop immigration because of worker exploitation then maybe also concern yourself with the workers at home being exploited as well.
Calling opposition to immigration racist is as dishonest as calling opposition to Israel antisemitic.
Not to mention the biggest groups of immigrants here are the British.
And that’s exactly what I’m doing. I saw the worker power and wage growth that was starting to happen by the end of lockdowns before the world “had” to suddenly and rapidly reopen because companies were hurting for cheap labour.
Here’s your “pro-worker” immigration take:
