[rayiner]

> benefits from diverse cultures

You mean "benefits from increased population," right? Because isn't the whole theory that people are the same? If so, you're just adding new people who are exactly the same as the existing people. So the only benefits come from having more people, or more people with certain skills (if you're filtering based on that).

[stymaar]

Nobody in Switzerland is worried about the population growing due to birthrate. This referendum is about stopping immigration (even though in Switzerland more than anywhere else, immigration is at the foundation of the country's wealth).

[rayiner]

> (even though in Switzerland more than anywhere else, immigration is at the foundation of the country's wealth).

Is that true? Switzerland's foreign-born population was under 5% around WWII. Wasn't Switzerland already a rich country by then?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Wasn't Switzerland already a rich country by then?

In 1940, Switzerland’s GDP/capita was 2.9x [EDIT: the world average]; it peaked at 4.4x in 2000 and is now 3.8x [1]. (It increases linearly, long term, from the mid 20s until 2000.)

Relative to Western Europe, Switzerland was 1.6x in 1950, about the same as today.

[1] https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/relea...

[ashdksnndck]

I feel like I have to read this backwards to perhaps understand it. Is 2.9x the multiplier of Swiss GDP/capita vs the Western Europe average in 1940?

[JumpCrisscross]

Sorry, edited for clarity.

[tempay]

In 1910 the foreign-born population was 14.7% and the drop around WWII was caused by other factors.

Much of the industrialisation and banking industry was driven by immigrants. Arguably the wealth of today is the product of managing to avoid the worst of WWII and profiting from Switzerland's "neutrality" but that's an entire conversation by itself.

[kakacik]

Well they were neutral, its just most folks, even otherwise smart ones, don't like true neutral behavior if it doesn't actually favor their side, hence such 'smart' snarky remarks I can see all the time, by people feeling they know history. Swiss accepted everybody, hundreds of thousands of refugees too, some parts even when it became obvious they will all face starvation since they were completely encircled by axis. Private banks accepted everybody's money, just like every global bank did before and after the war.

They secretly helped allies - check Campione d'Italia story for example. Thats very far from neutral behavior. And so on. But most people don't want to know facts, they want simple black & white stories.

It continues till today - they are officially neutral but look at their moves ie against russia during Ukraine war. Completely aligned with west (well apart from US which has top brass collaborating with their sworn mortal enemy). Look how their army looks like - 100% compatibility with NATO, 0% with russia or anybody else. They picked their side, they just don't boast around it, actions speak more than 1000 words.

[stymaar]

> Much of the industrialisation and banking industry was driven by immigrants.

This. In particular the chemical/pharmaceutical industry (which is still a major Swiss industry today) got bootstrapped in great part by French and German chemists moving to Switzerland where they could make chemicals that was patented elsewhere but not in Switzerland due to looser industrial property laws at the time.

[moomin]

It saw a fair bit of immigration before the war to get there. The war itself obviously helped enrich them by not being in it and also practically zeroed immigration. Immigration continued after the war. There’s other factors, obviously, like early industrialisation.

[bluebarbet]

>in Switzerland more than anywhere else, immigration is at the foundation of the country's wealth

Such a claim would need terms to be defined, even before justification. Switzerland's mercenary attitude to immigration is well known, yes. I would argue that endogenous factors (history and culture) are far more important in explaining Switzerland's success. Neither natural resources nor immigration are determinative of a country's wealth. See: Japan, which historically has had neither.

[throwaway2037]

    > Switzerland's mercenary attitude to immigration is well known

What is meant by "mercenary attitude" here?

[bluebarbet]

Historically, Switzerland has taken the same approach to immigration as the Gulf Arab states: immigration is strictly contingent on labor needs, and citizenship is almost completely out of reach.

[throwaway2037]

    > Switzerland has taken the same approach to immigration as the Gulf Arab states

I need to say: Have you watched any YouTube videos about the way that low-skill migrants live and work in Gulf Arab states? It is horrifying. I will not downvote your comment if you reply in good faith. My point: Italian migrants who worked on big Swiss infra projects may not qualify for citizenship, but they did not have their passports confiscated by employers, nor lived in housing anywhere near the appalling conditions of Gulf Arab states.

[bsimpson]

If the referendum passes and the population crosses the threshold, Switzerland may need to remove itself from e.g. the Schengen area. All the remediations mentioned in the referendum are about suspending immigration.

[aprilthird2021]

All the butthurt people are going to come in here with screeds trying to upend a basic economic tenet that a growing population translates to economic growth if you can employ that growing population gainfully

[TacticalCoder]

> Because isn't the whole theory that people are the same? If so, you're just adding new people who are exactly the same as the existing people.

That's a very dumb theory. People cannot just be exchanged: you cannot take say, 60 million people out of Bangladesh, put them in Japan, and expect Japan to stay the same. Just as you cannot take 60 million Japanese, put them in Bangladesh, and expect Bangladesh to stay the name.

That's a fact. But I could give a shitload of historical examples too... Here's one: when white and black people arrived in the americas, there was still cannibalism taking place in both northern and southern america. The americas had neither white nor black people. Today there's no cannibalism anymore and there are not many kids sacrifices happening in the US to please Inca/Maya gods anymore either.

A slightly more reasonable theory is that if you import people through immigration at a reasonable rate, you can assimilate those people. For example for a long time in Europe female genital mutilation wasn't a thing anymore. Now sadly due to mass migration, ask any ob-gyn doctor in western Europe what he sees and what kind of act he has to do: like re-stitching hymens to pretend the women-to-be-married are virgins (because, yes, there are patriarchal cultures where men are going to inspect a woman's hymen to make sure she's a virgin).

People just live in a fantasy land in their heads: there are 300 million women alive, today, who've been genitally mutilated (that's a very sizeable percentage of all the women out there). What's actually ongoing is weirder and shittier than most people realize.

I say good for Switzerland to curb immigration a bit.

People may be not dissimilar but cultures certainly are.

[bootsmann]

> more people with certain skills (if you're filtering based on that)

This is how freedom of movement works, yes, and it's a key reason why our country is so rich.