“In the long term we are all dead”, said the economist John Maynard Keynes.
the Quote came me in mind when the sociology professor Grete Brochmann Wednesday presented a report on the long-term consequences of high immigration.
The longest fremskrivningene in the report going forward to the year 2146. The graph shows, as far as I understand, that the Norwegian-born norwegians then will generate higher public costs than the immigrants. However not ethnic norwegians to be a bit cheaper in operation than in the year 2110, but the situation has nevertheless changed from the year 2080, when immigrants were more expensive than the norwegians. From and 2070 are otherwise the various innvandrergruppenes effect on government finances becoming more equal – the difference between the european and african immigrants becomes smaller, because the estimated effect of the antecedents included in this calculation.
It is a little incomprehensible, but fascinating graph and can potentially be used both as an argument for both a restrictive and a liberal immigration policy. It is a trait it shares with much else in the report. For the future is uncertain issues, and the long-term perspective is staggering. In 2146 will the internet will have been in existence for more than 150 years, instead of almost twenty. The age of oil will be over, eldrebølgen will have been continuously high and the robots are entering the workplace for the longest time. And then we will all be dead, well to mark for an expensive old age paid for by a generous welfare state.
Difficult with cohesion and confidence
Brochmann selected at the outset to remind just that both an increasingly ageing population, and the oil eventually enough will have larger economic consequences for the Uk than continued high immigration. But in contrast to the first Brochmann committee in 2011, it is more than just the finances that have been under the microscope now. The government would also have established what continued high immigration will have to say for the unity and trust in Norway.
Such is difficult to calculate, but the committee endorses the implicit reasoning that lies in the mandate: High immigration can naturally affect both trust and cohesion in the negative direction if the integration fails. Since these value are the basic assumptions of both the welfare state and Norwegian society, there is every reason to be concerned of such.
But considering that Brochmann is one of these more modern and not quite as carefree innvandringsforskerne, is the report characterized by an almost a little surprising optimism.
the board believes that the Norwegian model, with a well-ordered work life, the inclusive education system and generous welfare system, will work also when it comes to integrating the immigrant population. Admittedly, there is a need to “strengthen sosialiseringen” when it comes to the acceptance of gender equality, democracy and other values we consider as Norwegian. Specific limits Brochmann to ventilate the idea of national guidelines, for example, for the exemption from the teaching and use of the nikab.
Based on the research on andregenerasjonsinnvandrere allowed her to still be optimistic also in this field during Wednesday’s press conference.
a Little help for the politicians
the Point of Keynes was not to give blaffen in the future. I mean not that the long-term calculations in the Brochmann report is uinteressante. But the point is that the long-term perspectives rarely help for contemporary issues.
the Committee’s most specific recommendations are good: Increased use of lønnstilskudd, greater efforts for the qualification of refugees, and more evaluation of what works in integreringspolitikken. Crucial is it to get more refugees into work, underlines Brochmann.
But there are conclusions one can draw without a long-term perspective, and also well within the innvandringspolitisk konsensustenkning. There is thus no need for any drastic restructuring of the Norwegian immigration policy, and that integration can and should be better, is all parties in principle agree on.
May have disappointed Listhaug
The previous Brochmann-selection paved the way for it all to count on the economic consequences of immigration. The sample also showed a legitimate concern for the welfare sustainability. If Listhaug wanted further concern, Brochmann II-selection disappointed. Utvalgsmedlem Asle Toje is alone in noting that “high and permanent immigration will be an acute challenge for the Norwegian culture”.
His fremtidsfrykt is not necessarily less rational than the majority of the setting. The truth is that we don’t know how it’s going to go in the longer term.
For some, it is an argument for restrictive immigration policy. For the other the opposite. Although I am unsure how concerned we should be of the times when we all anyway is dead.
Here you can read some other comments that have engaged from Andreas Halvorsen: