If you have too many skilled people for too few jobs requiring the skill, then you can safely expect hostility to highly skilled immigrants of said skill, and a lot of hoops to be jumped for access to employment. Overall though, there are skilled jobs that go unfilled, because natives can be too expensive. For instance, Greek masons were excellent, but too few and expensive, so the influx of skilled Albanian masons was seen very positively. The jobs of Greek masons were enabled and enhanced by the presence of the Albanians. I doubt this would have been the case if Greek masons were too many, and their livelihoods threatened. So it is a game of numbers. Popularity is high when skilled people can be absorbed, but expect it to tank when there are too many.
Great summary. There’s also the argument that skill complementarities between native born and immigrants are particularly high among highly skilled -> raising everyone’s wages. It’s still not a highly plausible channel towards positive attitudes though
Thank you! Yeah, while I doubt the complementarities argument is something that is on people's minds, I do think it should be possible to explain intuitively, which can increase support even more.
True. I’ve seen people use sports as an analogy. It’s possible to show that each local player gets better if you have Messi or Giannis on your team. And then, not every highly skilled person is a Messi…
However, I think we perhaps should take a pragmatic approach (my preferred approach). Which is, that people intuitively understand when their jobs, or personal safety, is threatened. For example, a lawyer knows intuitively that high skilled migrants will not threaten their job security. A university professor as well. My sister, who is a civil engineering with 10 year experience, knows that no migrant will take the job she has.
A construction worker or a cab driver knows intuitively that a migrant might take their job.
I think a better way to analyze whether immigration criticism is self-serving is to ask people: "how and in what way do you think migration will affect you personally, negatively or positively?"
I'd strongly push back on the professor example specifically. Academia is one of the most internationally competitive labor markets there is. A huge share of faculty positions in the US go to foreign-born scholars, and every professor knows this from their own job searches (in the US, there is basically no H-1B cap for academic jobs).
Yet, for better or worse, academics remain among the most pro-immigration groups. That's hard to square with the intuitive self-interest story.
I still think it would probably reveal much to ask people how they think they will be personally affected by immigration (on such things as job security, housing and personal safety), and then rate themselves on a scale for how positive they are towards migration.
My guess is that there will be a strong correlation.
You mention that those with higher education also compete for jobs. But if we take for example a MD, and ask them if they think they will struggle to find a job, my guess is they will say no. There is very low unemployment among MDs.
If they know they can live in a good area, have a good job, and feel safe, why would they oppose migration?
If you have too many skilled people for too few jobs requiring the skill, then you can safely expect hostility to highly skilled immigrants of said skill, and a lot of hoops to be jumped for access to employment. Overall though, there are skilled jobs that go unfilled, because natives can be too expensive. For instance, Greek masons were excellent, but too few and expensive, so the influx of skilled Albanian masons was seen very positively. The jobs of Greek masons were enabled and enhanced by the presence of the Albanians. I doubt this would have been the case if Greek masons were too many, and their livelihoods threatened. So it is a game of numbers. Popularity is high when skilled people can be absorbed, but expect it to tank when there are too many.
Great summary. There’s also the argument that skill complementarities between native born and immigrants are particularly high among highly skilled -> raising everyone’s wages. It’s still not a highly plausible channel towards positive attitudes though
Thank you! Yeah, while I doubt the complementarities argument is something that is on people's minds, I do think it should be possible to explain intuitively, which can increase support even more.
True. I’ve seen people use sports as an analogy. It’s possible to show that each local player gets better if you have Messi or Giannis on your team. And then, not every highly skilled person is a Messi…
If I may comment here directly.
Thank you for directing me to this article.
However, I think we perhaps should take a pragmatic approach (my preferred approach). Which is, that people intuitively understand when their jobs, or personal safety, is threatened. For example, a lawyer knows intuitively that high skilled migrants will not threaten their job security. A university professor as well. My sister, who is a civil engineering with 10 year experience, knows that no migrant will take the job she has.
A construction worker or a cab driver knows intuitively that a migrant might take their job.
I think a better way to analyze whether immigration criticism is self-serving is to ask people: "how and in what way do you think migration will affect you personally, negatively or positively?"
I'd strongly push back on the professor example specifically. Academia is one of the most internationally competitive labor markets there is. A huge share of faculty positions in the US go to foreign-born scholars, and every professor knows this from their own job searches (in the US, there is basically no H-1B cap for academic jobs).
Yet, for better or worse, academics remain among the most pro-immigration groups. That's hard to square with the intuitive self-interest story.
I still think it would probably reveal much to ask people how they think they will be personally affected by immigration (on such things as job security, housing and personal safety), and then rate themselves on a scale for how positive they are towards migration.
My guess is that there will be a strong correlation.
You mention that those with higher education also compete for jobs. But if we take for example a MD, and ask them if they think they will struggle to find a job, my guess is they will say no. There is very low unemployment among MDs.
If they know they can live in a good area, have a good job, and feel safe, why would they oppose migration?
Okay, point taken.
It is not an occupation I am personally familiar with.