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

71–80 of 402 posts

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

#71

Post by P5Wl »

A world of free movement will not have a single welfare state.

Even after decades, and generations, immigrants from certain regions have absolutely abysmal rates of employment in more developed countries they have settled in. How would an even larger scale of immigration flip the trend we can already witness, a complete 180 degrees? Many seem completely content on living on benefits alone, or fully unable to find employment with the skill set they have gathered, even when they have born in the country where the natives fare much better. The way I see it, the money that is being spent on these people could be spent with a far better interest elsewhere.

78 trillion, truly, is a fantasy pulled from a behind.

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

#72

Post by ipsocannibal »

davnicwil wrote: post #63
ipsocannibal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^^^^^^ 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?

I think all you have to do is look at modern American income disparity in the United States over the last 50 or so years and you have your answer. Sure, the poorest did become moderately better off financially in terms of wages. Yet did there quality of life increase? I would argue that the size of the pie is irrelevant past the point of what is required for basic survival. What truely matters is the relative size of the pieces. Especially in a country where we have equated money with speech.

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

#73

Post by fwn »

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…

> The Economist acts like good governance is a feature of geography

Where did they say that? It's a common and well researched problem that institutions are not easily transplanted.

I am also not really sure what "government is people" is supposed to mean. Creating and maintaining institutions that produce wealth and stability is very difficult and dependent on many conditions like path dependencies and global embeddedness. In no case it was ever as easy as saying something like: Those people are just great institution builders!

Things like corruption aren't personal traits but rational under specific systemic environments.

There is a great book by Acemoglu and Robinson on that topic named "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty": https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-e...

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

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

repolfx wrote: post #52
rock_hard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but we're not talking about an additional place here or there. When people say childcare they tend to mean professional daycare, no? That's very much people bottlenecked. But if immigrants are more fertile than the locals, which they usually are at least for a while, then if the Economist was right about immigrants being well employed in construction jobs and hairdressers such, you'd expect an sudden influx to…

> When people say childcare they tend to mean professional daycare

There is a professional daycare on my block. I see the lady who runs it at our corner coffee shop from time to time. Her kids were in there with everyone else’s. (This was a point she marketed.) She’s an immigrant from Kenya.

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

#76

Post by ipsocannibal »

mozumder wrote: post #68
dna_polymerase wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. Let put this into action. How about you try to hitchhike across western europe or japan and document your experences. Then try to hitchhike across the middle east or subsaharan africa. Let me know how that one goes for you. I hope you don't encounter any differences.

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

#77

Post by notdeniro »

rock_hard wrote: post #31
repolfx wrote: post #23

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.

So you support constant work without maternity leave? I mean you know immigrants go through pregnancy and recovery, right?

Interesting to see how the rights people usually fight for become unimportant when it benefits you. I hope your nanny got at least minimum wage too.

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

#79

Post by dna_polymerase »

mozumder wrote: post #68
dna_polymerase wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Maybe you should leave your echo chamber every once in a while. I also live in the most diverse area of my nation, and while it is all fun and games when I am around well educated, well mannered people from different countries it is less fun when I have to cross the street in a diverse area with less high educational standards. The former by the way are already eligible to cross the border at any time (because they are legally able to obtain a visa) the latter aren't and really shouldn't.

That said, the cultural differences in the Americas might be less grave than Europe and the Middle East, or the U.S. and the Middle East for example. It really boils down to religion and education (in most cases), both of which are pretty similar in the Americas.

Post reply on HN