Page 88 - IJPS-1-1

A simulation analysis of the longer-term effects of immigration on per capita income in an aging population

Table 2. Simulations with alternative immigrant age distributions when there are child immigrants
AGEIM (25, 50, 25) AGEIM (25, 75, 0)
t = 0 t = 1 t = 2 t = 3 t = 1 t = 2 t = 3
--------------------------------------------------------------- q = 10% ---------------------------------------------------------------
Population 100.0 114.9 123.2 127.1 114.9 125.9 134.3
- growth rate — 14.9 7.2 3.2 14.9 9.5 6.7
- proportion old 16.8 24.2 26.8 27.5 24.2 24.5 25.4
- proportion child 25.7 22.2 21.7 21.3 22.2 22.9 22.0
LF/Pop. ratio 48.1 45.9 44.3 44.1 45.9 44.8 45.0
National income 100.0 109.8 113.5 116.7 109.8 117.3 125.7
- per capita 100.0 95.5 92.1 91.8 95.5 93.2 93.7
- wtd. per capita 100.0 93.7 90.1 89.5 93.7 91.8 91.7
--------------------------------------------------------------- q = 20% ---------------------------------------------------------------
Population 100.0 125.4 151.1 177.4 125.4 157.0 194.6
- growth rate — 25.4 20.5 17.4 25.4 25.2 24.0
- proportion old 16.8 22.2 23.3 24.1 22.2 19.6 20.7
- proportion child 25.7 22.4 22.8 22.1 22.4 24.7 23.4
LF/Pop. ratio 48.1 47.1 45.9 45.9 47.1 46.7 47.2
National income 100.0 122.8 144.3 169.4 122.8 152.6 191.2
- per capita 100.0 98.0 95.5 95.5 98.0 97.2 98.3
- wtd. per capita 100.0 96.2 93.9 93.6 96.2 96.7 97.0
--------------------------------------------------------------- q = 30% ---------------------------------------------------------------
Population 100.0 135.8 181.8 238.9 135.8 191.3 269.7
- growth rate — 35.8 33.9 31.4 35.8 40.9 40.9
- proportion old 16.8 20.5 20.5 21.4 20.5 16.1 17.3
- proportion child 25.7 22.6 23.5 22.7 22.6 25.9 24.4
LF/Pop. ratio 48.1 48.1 47.2 47.3 48.1 48.2 48.8
National income 100.0 135.9 178.7 235.1 135.9 192.1 274.0
- per capita 100.0 100.1 98.3 98.4 100.1 100.4 101.6
- wtd. per capita 100.0 98.3 97.0 96.8 98.3 100.5 100.8
Note: See relevant parts of note to Table 1.

with the higher proportion of Young Adults dominates. However, even that one requires a
high quota to eliminate the decline from the initial level; to come close requires a quota of
20 percent, to eliminate the decline entirely requires a quota of 30 percent, and even then
the result is not achieved until the second generation.
3.3 The Effect of Eliminating Child Immigrants

Child immigrants augment immediately the dependent component of the population and it
is of interest therefore to explore the consequences of restricting admission to adults. The
two immigration choices in Table 3 repeat the distributions of adult immigrants in Table 2
but now stipulate no Child immigrants; the quotas remain the same but the immigration
totals consist entirely of adults. The effects are immediate and significant. The income per
capita indexes are higher than they were with Children included, in all cases, and the de-
cline from base level is eliminated, all but eliminated, or even converted to an increase
with quotas of 20 and 30 percent coupled with the most highly concentrated of the two
adult age distributions. Exact results depend on whether one uses the weighted or

International Journal of Population Studies | 2015, Volume 1, Issue 1 82