How do you build a wall against the robots, the biggest threat for manufacturing workers here and there?

Sir, Martin Wolf quotes Richard Baldwin, author of the “The Great Convergence”, with that workers in South Carolina “are not competing with Mexican labour, Mexican capital and Mexican technology as they did in the 1970s. They are competing with a nearly unbeatable combination of US know-how and Mexican wages.” “Trump faces the reality of world trade” November 22.

That has an element to truth in it but, in many ways, the worst competition both Mexican and American manufacturing workers face in the future will come from technology, like robots.

How do you build a wall against job-stealing robots? No matter how that wall was built, your own consuming citizens would end up paying for it by paying higher prices.

One idea I have been toying with lately goes someway along the line of placing some type of payroll taxes on robots; first so as to permit us humans to be able to compete with these on a more level ground; and second so that with those revenues we could partially fund a Universal Basic Income, a Societal Dividend, which could provide us with a step-ladder to easier reach up to the growing gig-economy. 

That said, with respect to Trump and trade-deals I would just remind him of that no nation can be kept strong by cuddling up in comforting isolation and that probably the last legacy any President would want to leave behind him, is that of having weakened the Home of the Brave.

To top that up, quite gently, I would also point out to Trump that USA’s Declaration of Independence clearly states as one of its justifications, the need to stand up to “the present King of England… For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World”.

PS. In this context only as curiosa, the Declaration of Independence also mentions as a justification that “the present King of England…has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States… obstructing the Laws of naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither” 

@PerKurowski

To solve its immigration concerns, in harmony, Europe needs to free itself from all preachy political correctness

Sir, I refer to François Heisbourg’s “France cannot indulge the xenophobes on immigration” August 28.

Heisbourg writes: “The question of immigration, a visceral issue… is driving a wedge between EU populations and their governments, between member states and indeed between the EU itself and the values on which it was founded.”

And in order to bridge the gap he suggests EU “a response to the immigration crisis that lives up to rather than falls short of its values…most EU member states… are not providing the systematic right of asylum to which war-refugees are entitled under international humanitarian law or by common decency.” “Europe’s leaders need to live up to our responsibilities as humans and as neighbors, assume part of the burden, and talk straight to the electorate.”

What straight talk is he talking about? That the deliberate conflation by demagogues of immigration, the refugee exodus, the spread of Islam and jihadi terrorism is as emotionally powerful as it is factually spurious”, and that therefore Europeans have no moral right to feel humanly uneasy about immigration?

That is precisely the type of holier than thou political correctness, a Neo-Inquisition, that serves as growth hormone to extremist movements.

If anything politicians who want to build bridges, need to share the concerns, not negate their existence or outright condemn their validity; all in order to then proceed to openly discuss what can be done. For instance, should there be a limit to how many immigrants Europe can accept the next-decade, and if so, what number… 10 million, 100 million or no limit at all?

My age group, and those older of course, have basically seen world population triple during our lifetime. One way or another, that sole fact tells us there are some changes going on that, for good or for bad, were perhaps not embedded in our values.

If you think I am just another political incorrect who is against immigration, I invite you to visit my:

http://theamericanunion.blogspot.com

PS. On the other side of the pool, where would Donald Trump be, if he had no political correctness trampoline to jump on?

Let people vent their concerns!

@PerKurowski

Political correctness is a society-wide groupthink that can be very dangerous.

Sir, In the Shrink and the Sage’s “Can we get used to anything?” of May 16, the Sage mentions “society-wide groupthink”. And the best example of current society-wide groupthink I can think of is “political correctness”.

I just came back from a week in Sweden. There I heard many expressing to me, in sotto voce, sort of ashamed, sort of “don’t tell anyone about this”, some very ordinary and human concerns about there being too many migrants and about the risk they felt that could dilute their meaning of being a Swede.

My immediate thought was that political correctness, if it blocks this way citizens from venting their concerns, then it must be a dangerous powerful growth hormone for extremism.

In other words, if you use a “That’s like Hitler” in response to too many of people concerns, then too many might end up thinking “That Hitler guy sound’s quite right for me”.

Let us never forget that the emotions involved in the not liking something for the wrong reasons, are just as strong as that of the not liking something for "the right reasons".

PS. My father suffered years of concentration camp because of Hitler. I don’t remember him saying, “That’s like Hitler” about anything or anyone… perhaps because he would never want to diminish Hitler’s evilness to something being sharable.

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, stupidity is not "frighteningly near", it is already here, and it is well entrenched.

Sir, Martin Wolf, with respect to immigration, correctly argues that “the presence of hard-working and ambitious people speaking a multitude of languages and offering a diversity of culture, while fitting with the predominantly liberal culture of the UK, should surely be welcomed”, “Fear of immigration is no reason for Britain to leave Europe” November 28.

And Wolf rightly concludes “It would be folly to let a paroxysm of anxiety over immigration drive the debate on whether UK should stay in EU… unfortunately, that degree of stupidity seems frighteningly near”.

But, let me ask Martin Wolf, sort of for the umpteenth time: what’s the use of inviting immigrants who could provide much dynamism if at the same time, you are fighting against the number one source of dynamism, namely risk-taking?

The credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which provide banks with much more incentives to finance the “safer”, the old, the history, than the “riskier”, the new, the future, tells me stupidity has already arrived. And, observing how the debate ignores the distortions in credit allocation these regulation produce, I would venture that stupidity is firmly entrenched.

The challenges of the “We have nothing to do” and of the society as a changing habitat.

Sir, you title the article on the current riots in the suburbs of Stockholm as “The challenges of the Swedish model” May 27. Although that is quite understandable perhaps a “Not even the Swedish model gets away” would have been more appropriate, since what is happening in Sweden is perhaps foremost a reflection of the growing unemployment of youth.

This is really nothing new in Sweden. In 1965 in the middle of Stockholm there were thousands of youngsters (I was not there) rioting for days and causing damages… and the basic explanation heard was that of “We have nothing to do”. 

And in this respect, given the possibilities of prolonged large unemployment, I have often argued that the well being of nations might come to depend more on the capacity of the unemployed to deal with their reality in a constructive way, that on what the employed are capable to do. 

That said there is no way to avoid the fact that whether we like it or not, current rioting in many places also closely correlate with immigration problems and the de-facto creation of immigrant ghettos which result even though no one wishes that to happen. Especially disturbing in Sweden is that during some of the car burning, some religious slogans were overheard.

A society is more than a piece of land, it is a delicate habitat. It thrives on the slow introduction of new species, but it can also fall apart if too many new species are introduced too fast and cannot adapt, without destroying too many of the previously existing ones.

A case for massive immigration?

Sir in “Learning to live with excess debt” you hold that though “deleveraging is needed but authorities are right to slow it” and you also warn against “overstretching” solvent states as “currency meltdowns could follow” and you therefore conclude that “the only viable alternative is to accept current debt levels and try to grow the economy to match them” October 29.

In practical terms what does it mean? That the US should accept the help of many million more immigrants, preferably legal, so that they can help to grow the economy and pay its fiscal costs?

And US, get yourselves some more helpers too!

Sir Ricardo Hausmann tells the US “Stop behaving as whiner of first resort”, January 31; do not give “the US consumer more rope with which to hang himself”. Hear hear!

But as Hausmann says not only should the US not bet all on finding a dream-adjustment like reducing the over-consumption in the US “in a way that does not hurt longer term growth” by looking at what others (China) could do for it; it also needs “to keep on growing”.

The US has to be careful that the reduction of consumption does not diminish its size, since it is not only a matter of getting back into equilibrium; it is also about being able to take care of the outstanding stock of debt. And so “Stop behaving as a whiner and get yourself some 40 million more working immigrants to help you out!” could also be a valid message.

I ask why industrial China should be able to use rural China for their growth and not North America Central America.

We must help people to go where they feel they belong… alive

Sir Christopher Caldwell in “Rioters vs state in a test of will” December 1, quotes the Socialist leader Malek Boutih saying “they are whole populations here that don’t feel they belong to this country” and informs that the bodies of the dead boys “will be flown to Morocco and Senegal, respectively, for burial”, which leaves us all with the question of why could they not have been flown there alive?

The poor in developing countries frequently face no other choice than to emigrate to richer countries in order to survive physically but many alienated and frustrated citizens of developed countries do not really have the choice to emigrate somewhere else in order to survive emotionally, and perhaps they should have.

For instance if these dead boys had had the option of selling whatever French citizen’s rights they had to a foreigner truly interested in coming to France and with that money could have financed their resettlement to Morocco or Senegal perhaps we could have solved the problems on two fronts.

Clearly it is not as easy as that but the world needs to find new and different ways to fight violence originated from deep sentiments of alienation with other means than violence.

In immigration, more than barriers new riverbeds are needed

Sir Clive Crook in “How to untie the immigration knot” June 14 gives a glimpse of what is needed by arguing that instead of working on how to solve the 12 million stock of illegal immigrants the US would be better served by first working at the flow control valves. Doing that it is important to remember that the best way to control a flow is not always by building a barrier but sometimes by finding new riverbeds where it could run more orderly. It is in this respect that I believe FT’s readers could be interested in hearing about an initiative of trying to have private insurance companies stepping up to the plate and offer to guarantee the payment of a substantial indemnity to the US government for each worker who being favored by a temporary visa program does not return home in a timely fashion.

Immigration policies should not be a Noah’s Ark.

Sir, you are absolutely right when in “Small steps needed on US immigration”, June 12, you insist on the need to build credibility, which is exactly what some of us are trying to do by for instance developing a private insurance programs destined to guarantee that workers with visas issued under temporary programs will return in a timely way, or else paying some very substantial indemnities. What is not that clear though is why you think that creating bureaucratic biases in favour of high skilled workers is a naturally good thing to do instead of allowing the market to signal its own and very dynamic relative worker shortages. One thing is a Noah’s Ark in times of flooding and quite a different thing when it remains in the same spot, on dry land.

We should be able to do a lot of good with temporary worker programs

Sir, when you comment what you find as the better flawed than nothing US immigration deal, May 21, you mention in it that “the temporary worker program offers no paths to citizenship” and that it “will merely create a huge new pool of permanently illegal aliens”. You are mistakenly looking at it from a very negative (might I dare say almost “supremacy”) perspective.

There is a real urgent need for a substantial temporary worker program that really is temporary, that has nothing to do with earning citizenship, and that if adequately executed could bring a lot of economic growth and social satisfaction for both sending and receiving countries. The program now announced might possibly be our last opportunity in a long time to have a chance of creating a good example to follow and we need everyone’s help and support for that, including yours. Many of us are already working on organizing our Central American workers so that they, while fully complying with the laws of the program, can best utilize their few legal working years in the US to earn and learn the most, so as to be able to do their best for their beloved homelands upon their return.

And, by the way, these workers, they are no aliens; they are all just earthlings like me and you.

Should we let the market really work the migration flows?

Sir, I subscribe almost entirely to Martin Wolf’s “Why immigration policy must be a compromise”, December 22, and the almost is there as I find it hard to understand how his view “that work permits should be auctioned” to the best bidder is related to a “compromise”. Will the one offering the most for the work permit be the best worker or is he just the one needing or capable of paying the most for a shelter?

If Wolf really believes that the market mechanism should be used to optimize migration flows then anyone wanting to move out of his country should also have the right to sell his “place” in the market. We could thereby create some real incentives for people to sell an expensive UK residence right and buying themselves a dirt-cheap Tanzania one, with view of making a huge capital gain when this last poor country gets developed.

In the debate on immigration we must never forget that no matter how much we take shelter behind reinforced borders, at the end of the day, we are all still living, ever more cramped, on the very small planet earth.

Should then the ageing population emigrate?

Sir, Martin Feldstein argues in his “Immigration is no way to fund an ageing population” December 14, that immigration would generate very little additional tax revenues as immigrants “generally earn less than native Spanish workers” but which is something that with time, and increased scarcity of younger working people, is and should not necessarily be true. That said by giving the example of Spain where “the number of working-age people per retiree is expected to fall from 4.5 today to fewer than two in 2050” he also brings forward evidence that seems to prove that without immigration there would be no way to fund or manage an ageing population… unless of course the ageing population emigrates. The way out of this conundrum that Feldstein proposes is to “supplement the tax-financed benefits with increased saving and investments” but what that has to do with immigration is somewhat hard to understand, since whether they can afford it or not, the elderly will still need help, and also someone should be doing the jobs they all do now in Spain, unless you want that nation to behave like an old soldier and just fade away.

Martin Feldstein immigration ageing population