The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by the great depression and a precursor to WWII.
It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.
That's moving the goalposts. Nothing about what you said makes it the result of Trump's administration.
Also, might I just point out the irony of accusing people of being "anti-intellectual" in reaction to the financial crisis that is precisely the one the intellectuals promised us could never possibly happen under their guidance, and were mocking people for even considering it possible right up to the day it happened. How rational is it to belief false things simply because they carry the label "intellectual"?
It's not moving the goalposts, I was just noticing the global trend that links Brexit, Trump and possibly other upcoming events like Le Pen.
> the intellectuals promised us could never possibly happen under their guidance, and were mocking people for even considering it possible right up to the day it happened
Well, source please. Not that I don't believe you, but don't remember the deriding or the predictions you're mentioning and it's actually really hard to predict a financial crisis, being dangerous to put a break on the economy based on speculations.
I'm a fairly intellectual guy and I'd say that it's fairly disingenuous to point at "anti-intellectualism" and ignore massive inequality and corruption as party in these latest events.
There's plenty of economists running around assuring everyone that Piketty is wrong, inequality doesn't matter, someone being a billionaire doesn't affect someone on welfare who has cheap iPhones, etc. However, I think these defenders of the status quo will be proven wrong. It all rings very hollow.
Anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, inequality. Don't forget that last one. It's the one that puts us liberal techies on the hook too.
Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to stay in their own countries?
Immigration is more-or-less irrelevant to the common worker either way. Macroeconomic labor conditions affect the common worker more: if labor's share of income is large but immigration is high, people are fine, but if labor's share of income is low with zero immigration, people are still miserable.
How much immigration is there into, say, Belarus? Practically none. How well-off is the common worker in Belarus? Miserable.
I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably automation and not immigrants.
Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs, or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc.
Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries.
You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.
You get automation either way - immigration only buys you ten or so years before the costs fall below even immigrant wages, after which you're left with unemployed immigrants.
And lets not pretend the availability of cheap labour has nothing to do with jobs being low-end.
Medical doctors sure is a funny example to give however - the USA has a lot of immigrants - how well has that worked in keeping healthcare affordable?
Immigration is keeping health care affordable in Germany and probably a bunch of other European countries. Until the Brexit, cheap foreign labor helped keep prices low in the UK.
The USA don't have a problem with immigrants - they have a problem with the runaway corruption of their political leaders. Corporate lobbyists get to write laws for representatives to rubber stamp. The reason the same drugs cost 5x more in the US than in Canada has nothing to do with immigrants.
I'd love some statistics on this - what is the proportion of immigrants who are doctors, and how does that compare to the native population (for Germany, the U.K., etc..)? How does it depend on the immigrant's country of origin? And, if the goal is to reduce medical costs - why not accept only doctors?
I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected.
First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that completely dwarf just that for doctors.
Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane.
Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of populations.
The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.
Fleeing from countries such as Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia? And pretending there are only two options - let them stay forever, or gun them down at the border, is dishonest at best. We ship food half way around the world, there's no reason wealthy countries can't fund refugee camps and in general help and give aid to countries that accept refugees. This would also reduce the number of tragic drownings in the Mediterranean. But I don't see it suggested much as an option in the media...
And, are you saying the stance of governments to their people is "We need more workers - breed faster, or we'll import someone who will"? Britons are now an ethnic minority in London, but only racists would be bothered by the same taking place in their countries, I guess.
>We ship food half way around the world, there's no reason wealthy countries can't fund refugee camps and in general help and give aid to countries that accept refugees.
Except that those countries are, frankly, undemocratic, corrupt, and devoted to suppressing working conditions.
>And, are you saying the stance of governments to their people is "We need more workers - breed faster, or we'll import someone who will"?
Except of course that these same governments don't want their local capitalists to have to pay family-founding wages.
>Britons are now an ethnic minority in London, but only racists would be bothered by the same taking place in their countries, I guess.
I'm an ethnic minority everywhere except a tiny, embattled corner of the planet, about the size of New Jersey. What sympathy ought I have for inheritors of the British Empire being concerned about foreigners?
First of all, governments are for the most part able to differentiate between refugees and economically driven immigrants - the main influx of refugees in Germany and other European countries these days is from Syria, and it's not easy for Croats, say, or Slovenes to pass themselves off as Syrians. So unsurprisingly enough, we're not seeing a huge influx of Eastern Europeans - partly thanks to sensible limits on immigration.
Turks, Greeks and (though you didn't mention them) Italians are another matter: The industries of Germany (and other countries) practically begged people from these countries to come to Western Europe and augment labor pools here. The first deals were for short-term working arragements; later it was decided that there were good humanitarian and societal reasons to let these people emigrate and stay. The city I live in has a complement of about 10% (ethnic) Turks plus a colorful mixture of other origins. My dentist is a Turk!
Your idea of shipping aid to where it's needed is poorly considered, as another commenter has explained nearby. Syria, for example, continues to be a slaughterhouse, and its broken infrastructure can't feed and house people in bales of money.
No, it's not governments blackmailing their public to breed faster - the compulsion to maintain population figures is a purely social thing, no coercion needed. Former immigrants from Turkey and elsewhere will be working to pay part of my pension. You, meanwhile, are considering immigration as a threat. I have to tell you, your concern about "ethnic minorities" in London really is troubling. When people from other countries emigrate to England, they become British, and then only racists are concerned that those British people or their parents were formerly residents of a different country. Do I need to remind you that the USA is populated almost exclusively by emigrants from other countries? Oh wait, most of those were white, so that makes it... different? Conclude what you will.
There are no limits on immigration for people from Croatia or Slovenia in the EU. They could move over here to Germany tomorrow and immediately start working. They can't immediately apply for welfare though.
Syrians are not the only significant refugee group, there is also Afghanistan and Iran in the top 3. Together they currently make up about a third of all applications for asylum in Germany according to BAMF.
Threats of job security might not be the only threat they see. In a society with a lot of automation where you need a high level of education just to get a job, taking in a lot of unskilled immigrants means very few of them will be able to land a job, and overall poverty will rise.
your being dismissive. they have legitimate complaints that have been ignored for more than a decade. their situation (and really most people) continued to get worse as pro misses of prosperity from globalization landed on a few.
maybe they are wrong, but basically they are being called dumb for being pushed into minimum wage jobs and told 'dont worry, we'll raise minimum wage to 15 an hour and give you free community college' and rejecting that offer.
It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.