If borders were open

A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer.

Yet they built the paywall.

There seem like a lot of obvious objections that are not addressed and raises more questions than it asks.

> Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace

What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.

I think articles like this tend to simplify or handwave the caveats in unrealistic ways, so their result is always a lopsided analysis. Example of such a simplification:

> But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.

Yeah they could, but most won't. See: The bay area, Boston, NYC. (A few do: Montreal, or Tokyo, which added more housing than all of California last year)

These guys basically believe in magic soil, and that the inhabitants of "rich countries" are inherently interchangeable. The institutions just magically appeared separate from culture and demographics.

>European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male.

I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue?

I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial conflicts.

Then there is this:

>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges

This seems like a very sane system. Why is this not something we do? Do we not care about local interests at all as long as immigration isn't "too high"?

As an immigrant, I think this would be fair.

Institutions are mostly policies, procedures and process.

What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one? Would you rather work in a team of geniuses with no process, or a team of average developers who follow best practices?

Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.