Media reports suggest several legislators believe non-resident workers bring several ills to the economy and, more generally, to society. Their presence would impact negatively on the employment and income of locals. Some go as far as mentioning other effects, such as weakened social standing or lower economic bargaining power.
These are not uncommon claims, here and elsewhere. It appears obvious that if a non-resident worker is performing a certain job, it is ‘stealing’ an opportunity to a local one. Further, if a non-resident is earning more than a local, that ‘proves’ that a local is earning less than it could.
Protected labour segments, on the other hand, ‘show’ the benefits accruing to locals from discrimination rules against outsiders. One could keep ‘piling up’ arguments of this kind.
Frequently, if not almost always, these types of claims will not stand a closer look. Broad generalizations are problematic, and will easily lead to conclusions that may appear sound, superficially, but may ultimately prove plainly wrong.
Careful analysis of the data and facts will lead, in many instances, to the opposite conclusions. That is, non-residents are good for the economy, in general, and for most of the locals, in particular.
Does that mean, that no local can claim to suffer some negative impact in connection with the hiring of outside workers? Certainly not! But often the impacts were complex and overall, positive ones. Often, the negative impacts suffered by some of the locals will arise from factors other than the presence of non-resident workers per se.
In certain areas, the divergence between locals and non-locals will stem from different qualifications. If staff recruited outside brings in skills that are not available locally, it is normal they will earn more.
That income gap will be inevitable, but overall, society and economy will benefit from it. More productive workers will result in higher income, more taxes, and more opportunities for us all. Broad comparisons or averages will often hide biases that lead to misleading conclusions.
But the point here is not to list the many ways these comparisons can go wrong. It is disappointing that som many statements made here and there are not anchored on sounder analysis. And that those putting them forward fo not feel the need or are challenged to substantiate the claims.
Good policies arising from the flawed analysis are not impossible but are extremely unlikely.
