The article says the world would be twice as rich. World GDP/capita is $16k. Doubling this would make it $32k/person. U.S. GDP / capita is currently $57k. Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries, then Americans would need to get used to living twice as poor as today.
If borders were open
61–70 of 147 posts
Re: If borders were open
#62Did I miss the part where they discuss the economics of having a larger worker pool? like how that would affect existing workers? that seems like an enormous question to not address fully.
It would not affect everyone equally, and wages in many areas would definitely go down. For example, if the US recognized medical degrees from other countries, the influx of doctors would be so large that the income for a physician would drop tremendously. So the physicians that are already employed should (if they represent their own interest) be very against such a policy. But the aggregate would end up being that…
Looking at the concerns of US population, I'd bet that they'd be quite happy with the notion that increased supply could cause a significant decrease in doctor salaries and thus medical costs.
Protection benefits the industry, lack of protectionism benefits everyone else; and patients have much more votes than doctors.
Re: If borders were open
#63>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 ou…
Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.
Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers.
As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.
Re: If borders were open
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue? Young males commit most crimes all over the world. If you have an alternative explanation, I'd like to see strong statistical evidence to back it up.
Even if you restrict yourself to young males then immigrants have a disproportionate share in crime at least in Germany, actually immigrants in Germany commited ~40% of all crimes in 2015, with a rapid increase in the last few years. It is also pretty obvious on the street level: drugs for example are primarily sold by immigrant gangs, for example africans with turkish bosses.
Counting in crimes like drug sales is misleading. Selling drugs is really just a business opportunity, albeit illegal. Native Germans tend to have much better opportunities and more to lose. To some degree the same is true for robbery/burglary as well. It's economic pressure and incentives that make these crimes attractive, these people aren't so much immigrants but rather crime tourists (some of them from EU countries, mind you).
If you look at crimes without a profit motive, things tend to even out or turn around. You'll rarely see an immigrant responsible for arson or property damage, for example. In absolute terms, most crimes (that are persecuted) are of course profit-driven and the most crimes occur in poor areas.
Re: If borders were open
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't purport to understand or comprehend cultural differences, it's simply exploring the economic case. It's not call The Culturalist. For an empty article, you've had a very strong reaction to it.
> but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. He had a strong reaction because he's tired of these kinds of lies being perpetuated by our media. Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population.
Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous centuries?
Re: If borders were open
#66The article says the world would be twice as rich. World GDP/capita is $16k. Doubling this would make it $32k/person. U.S. GDP / capita is currently $57k. Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries, then Americans would need to get used to living twice as poor as today.
> Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries
That assumption is both onerous and preposterous
Re: If borders were open
#67What if the flow happened from richer to poorer countries? Developing and undeveloped countries are notoriously protectionists, specially of their visa/labor markets. What would happen if they opened their borders to all, presumably including qualified/entrepreneurial people?
I dont know how protectionist poorer countries are in general, but in south america there arent strong restrictions, because it is considered that people from developed countries are a lot more productive, precisely the effeect you are looking for. Sometimes there are rules meant to mimic the other ones as a deterrent (you dont let mine, i dont let yours kind of thing. Brazil and Argentina do this)
Re: If borders were open
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.
Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restri…
This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.
Re: If borders were open
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the part you're referring to: "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work." Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
Nobody is forcing you to. The application of migration restrictions is forcing other people to not move. In terms of individual liberties you lose nothing in this case.
> you lose nothing
Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing".
If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
Re: If borders were open
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus there is a delicious delirium of every migrant population being equally capable of or inclined to productive work.
Im not sure what you mean with this comment, can you clarify?
Considering mass immigration in terms of increasing worker pools presupposes that the mass immigrants are workers.