A world of free movement would be $78T richer

Post by rock_hard » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #23

oldcynic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by jerkstate » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #7

ealexhudson wrote: post #4

$78T, or, half of one Jeff Bezos. Let's not pretend the majority of that wealth wouldn't accumulate in a small number of pockets.

A trillion is not a billion $78 trillion = $78,000 billion (or many, many, many times Jeff Bezos)

Post by ipsocannibal » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

ephor wrote: post #3

>"A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer" ...A world where everyone's mother is a prostitute would be considerably more economically active. Its a shame the economy is seen as a end rather than a means.

Post by sintaxi » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #10

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…

Post by pjschlic » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

chrchang523 wrote: post #24

mozumder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…