The Financial Times wrote:
> LET THE HUDDLED MASSES GO FREE
> Samuel Brittan
>
> In order to convince those with an unthinking prejudice against
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> globalisation, a dramatic gesture is needed which would demonstrate that
> the free movement of capital and labour is of benefit to the world's poor.
There are many persons who oppose globalisation, but not one I know of
has "an unthinking prejudice against globalisation" -- rather, they have
thinking after-judices against globalisation. But this FT article is
written in a rather unthinking style... To take up just two points:
> Some economists might argue that the wages of indigenous workers might be
> depressed by competition from immigrants. However, a recent research study
> ("Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis"; the Home Office) shows that
> native wages have not been depressed in the UK in the past few years.
On average perhaps, but what about the distribution ? (median etc.)
The average can remain the same if the few's top salaries rise and the
many's bottom salaries fall.
> The Home Office study confirms the belief that migrants are more polarised
> than the rest of the population with higher concentrations of the rich and
> the poor, and also of the highly skilled and the very low-skilled. People
> in between tend not to migrate. Also, migrants have higher levels of
> entrepreneurship than the norm.
What do you think will happen to the low-developed "source countries" if
their (rare enough) top-skilled and most "entrepreneurial" individuals
emigrate ? Isn't it a bit egoistical to pull them to the already more
affluent and developed countries ? I think that's a typical example of
the reckless and irresponsible un-thinking of neoliberals.
Chris
