Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A world of free movement would be $78T richer

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 402 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

neilwilson wrote: post #29
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…

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

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by JamisonM »

mozumder wrote: post #50
chrchang523 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Data shows the opposite of what you say. I guess that means you are arguing in bad faith?

I am interested in what the data does say, but we should articulate what this discussion is about. I take your post to mean that:

  - access to affordable childcare increases fertility rates
  - inflows of lower-skilled workers to an area would increase access to affordable childcare
  - a way to increase the quantity of lower-skilled workers would be through immigration
The 3rd point above I think is trivial to accept, I am inclined to believe the other two points but would want to see the evidence that this is actually how things shake out.

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

#63

Post by davnicwil »

ipsocannibal wrote: post #35
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.

^^^^^^ I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It would be to the people driving them to move.

Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?

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

#64

Post by burfog »

noncoml wrote: post #40
branchless wrote: post #28

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?

No. It's not exponential.

Caring for her own children, she would instill her values as they grow. Her children would most likely get a love of knowledge and a determination to accomplish long-term tasks. Since she can produce many children, the number of people with these values experiences exponential growth from generation to generation.

If she instead outsources love to an immigrant from the third world, that other person will instill third-world values in the children. The likelihood of the children taking after their mother is greatly reduced, down only to any influence of DNA. The culture is not passed on. When fewer than two of the children take after the mother, there is an exponential decline.

In general, your direct impact on the world in nothing compared to the impact that your children can have. This likely applies even to the greatest scientists, and without question it applies to a random ordinary PhD.

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

#65

Post by onetimemanytime »

oldcynic wrote: post #20
Dwolb wrote: 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.

>>Have you tried getting adequate and affordable child care? Nigerian or Mexican immigrants doing that in USA would face the same high rent and expenses as US workers. They might charge a little less and that's it.

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

#66

Post by chrchang523 »

pjschlic wrote: post #39
chrchang523 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did you have (even a vague) source for this - I'm willing to search for it given even a vague gesture? I think this indeed sounds like it could be strong evidence, so I'd love to see it. Indeed, I would also think that a high skill population living mixed with a low skill population would have a higher birth rate than a high skill population NOT near a low skill population.

You can start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... and its list of sources, and drill down from there. Remember to subtract births to recent immigrants from the numerator, and number of recent immigrants from the denominator. It won't take long to verify my claim.

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

#67

Post by skybrian »

Dwolb wrote: 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…

One reason is that people have different ideas what "lucrative" means.

Native-born workers often have advantages (such as speaking the language and understanding the culture) that let them mostly-realistically aspire to better jobs. Even when out of work, they aren't going to decide to be, say, farmworkers, which looks like a a hard, low-paying, temporary, dead-end job to them. Their aspirations have priced them out of the market.

Of course this isn't universal. Immigrants sometimes compete with other people who have a strike against them. Here's an article about the challenges hiring line cooks:

https://medium.com/@foodrepublic/how-can-restaurants-fix-the...

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

#68

Post by mozumder »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #30
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…

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…

I live in literally the most diverse area of the US, and no, people from South America and Ohio really aren't different at all.

You could swap out our actual Peruvian home builders for someone in Ohio (if they wanted the job) and it would be the same.

Like I said, there is no excuse. Cultural differences aren't big enough to warrant borders and impose trade restrictions.

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

#69

Post by trextrex »

repolfx wrote: post #45

This article seems symptomatic of a general decline in the quality of The Economist. I used to be a subscriber but there was a noticeable sharp drop some time ago, I think when Micklethwaite stepped down as editor, and things seem to have got worse since. Shoddy thinking, bizarre arguments and extremist conclusions seem more common than they used to be. Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by movin…

Have you ever considered that what you consider "western values" are in fact values that emerge in a society that lives in conditions where there is political stability and economic opportunity? That people's "culture" is affected by the environment around them as a general pattern?

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

#70

Post by chrchang523 »

mozumder wrote: post #50
chrchang523 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Data shows the opposite of what you say. I guess that means you are arguing in bad faith?

See my comment above. I've pointed to data that backs up my conclusion. You have not, and I predict that it will be trivial to tear massive holes in whatever source(s) you end up citing.
Post reply on HN