51–60 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people looking after their own children are: 1. providing good child care 2. adding value
> 2. Adding value Don’t you think that a PhD in their thirties would add more value if they instead focused on their studies subject?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I guess you’d be surprised by reality buddy, because that’s exactly how my nanny did it when I grew up...she took care of her two kids and me at the same time...it’s like people who have three kids, totally possible and being done everywhere.
>"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.
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…
It was the first world war that changed everything.
Things like migration control, passports, visas, formal institute of citizenship, all traces to the time when the imaginary no. 1 boogyman was not Ben Laden and "angry Arab guys," but the German Kaiser and "angry Prussian guys"
The system of rigid citizenship, closed by default borders, and enslavement to a piece of paper called passport was forced onto the world under pretext "if you would not let us do this, the scary Kaiser will be upon you"
This day, it is the permanent surveillance state being pushed into mainstream buy the very same sort of people, and it will be upon the Western countries in no time if that party will not be punched hard in the face with all resolve.
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…
Add 10% to the economy, let's imagine for once it's passed onto wages, also up 10%. Rents up 10%. Everyone working longer for the landlords. Gains go to land under the current system. We already added women to the workforce more, rents went up.
Just imagine: If housing were that great of an investment, everyone would get enough credit to build, making effectively everyone a landlord.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people looking after their own children are: 1. providing good child care 2. adding value
> 2. Adding value Don’t you think that a PhD in their thirties would add more value if they instead focused on their studies subject?
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…
I think you're overestimating the number of Americans who would have the means to do so, despite not having an income.