Live data from Hacker News

A world of free movement would be $78T richer

economist.com

21–30 of 402 posts

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#21

The immediate goal of everyone in this country should be to open the borders and open trade. There is no excuse. Borders serve no useful purpose in a globalized economy. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if the states had hard borders between them? People act like having open borders mean invading marauders of foreigners, but did everyone from Ohio invade Maryland because of the open borders the states have? I…

I think Canada and Mexico might take issue with this plan.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#22

The immediate goal of everyone in this country should be to open the borders and open trade. There is no excuse. Borders serve no useful purpose in a globalized economy. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if the states had hard borders between them? People act like having open borders mean invading marauders of foreigners, but did everyone from Ohio invade Maryland because of the open borders the states have? I…

I think Canada and Mexico might take issue with this plan.

I'm sure we can work out a deal that'll make everyone happy. It might take some changes in our laws as well, but it can happen.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#23
post #12

This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones. I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact. Additionally this seems like a weird point: >Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work. If lucrative work were available, w…

Have you tried getting adequate and affordable child care? Fortunately our kids don't need it any more. It hugely restricts available options. Either from hours available, lengthy waiting lists or simply finding that after paying childcare work is no longer making economic sense.

Hmm, seems like there may have been a reason for the old traditions after all.

The Economist's point is weird/wrong for another reason. Immigrant women have babies too. They can't be both looking after their own children and looking after other people's simultaneously. Expensive childcare doesn't seem like the kind of problem you can permanently fix by just allowing tons of immigration from third world countries.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#24
post #12

This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones. I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact. Additionally this seems like a weird point: >Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work. If lucrative work were available, w…

How can they if they have to work full time to take care of their babies? Part of the problem with today's economy is that it's basically impossible for a middle-class woman to have a child and work. There needs to be a large population of unskilled laborers to do these kinds of low-level jobs that a person with a college degree won't do. This is why data shows areas with a large population of lower-class have a high…

Your model strongly predicts that fertility of preexisting natives would be higher in areas with more unskilled immigrants. The opposite is true, and the effect is not small.

It is safe to reject your model. Moreover, if you do not adjust your beliefs in response to contrary evidence, it is appropriate to presume that you are arguing in bad faith rather than trying to figure out the truth, and dismiss everything else you say on this subject. (This principle is equally applicable to someone arguing the other side of this particular issue in similar bad faith, of course; reversed stupidity is not intelligence.)

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#25
post #12

This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones. I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact. Additionally this seems like a weird point: >Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work. If lucrative work were available, w…

>This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones.

I think that's exactly right, but also an unfortunate reflection on the way it needs to be framed to make people pay attention.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#26
post #14

One thing open borders would completely destroy would be the social safety net of many countries. Let’s say there is completely open borders between Sweden and the United States. Sweden has high taxes and an significant social safety net. The United States has low taxes and a non-existent safety net. Over time, people who pay a lot of taxes migrate from Sweden to the United States. People from the United States who a…

Taxes would likely change from income taxes to consumption and property taxes, so it’s unlikely that governments will go bankrupt. More attractive areas of the world will cost more to live in, but it would eventually turn into one large country with pockets of exclusive communities.

[deleted]

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#27
post #12

This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones. I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact. Additionally this seems like a weird point: >Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work. If lucrative work were available, w…

Have you tried getting adequate and affordable child care? Fortunately our kids don't need it any more. It hugely restricts available options. Either from hours available, lengthy waiting lists or simply finding that after paying childcare work is no longer making economic sense.

Isn’t this a good thing though? That elderly care and childcare is as valuable as otherwise “lucrative work”? Or perhaps what this stage of capitalism has defined as lucrative work isn’t so lucrative.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#28
post #16
post #12

This an interesting article because it reframes current immigration discussions from humanitarian issues to economic ones. I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact. Additionally this seems like a weird point: >Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work. If lucrative work were available, w…

A lack of good child care options pulls half of all reproductive people out of the workforce.

people looking after their own children are:

1. providing good child care

2. adding value

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#29

The immediate goal of everyone in this country should be to open the borders and open trade. There is no excuse. Borders serve no useful purpose in a globalized economy. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if the states had hard borders between them? People act like having open borders mean invading marauders of foreigners, but did everyone from Ohio invade Maryland because of the open borders the states have? I…

Open borders without a transfer union leads to Greece and Italy. But when did evidential practice ever impact neoliberal economic theory

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#30

The immediate goal of everyone in this country should be to open the borders and open trade. There is no excuse. Borders serve no useful purpose in a globalized economy. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if the states had hard borders between them? People act like having open borders mean invading marauders of foreigners, but did everyone from Ohio invade Maryland because of the open borders the states have? I…

Borders serve a purpose. As a matter of fact people from Southern America (for example) hold other educational backgrounds, belief systems and an overall different attitude than people from the North. While we all are humans and we all should treat each other with respect we shouldn't forget that we all are different. In some cases we are more compatible to each other in some we aren't. Someday we might have a world without borders, but that isn't until we have solved education, wealth and access to those for the whole planet.

> People act like having open borders mean invading marauders of foreigners, but did everyone from Ohio invade Maryland because of the open borders the states have?

Because Ohio and Maryland are not that different. However El Salvador and the U.S. are and it might lead to huge problems (like the U.S. already has)

Also as you like Hillary Quotes so much: "Can't we just drone this guy" - Hillary Clinton on Julian Assange

Post reply on HN