91–100 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.
^^^^^^ 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just press ESC several times after the article is displayed and before the paywall popup.
Cool trick! Are there any other websites it works on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 are…
People could (and probably would) still live in communities with common cultural and religious ties, even in a world without national borders. And, in this world of international borders, people from disparate backgrounds manage to immigrate and integrate just fine. National boundaries don't really map to the borders of cultural and religious identity (as can be readily seen in the Middle East), so your argument here…
That is because we already let immigration happen. And it supports my thesis really well, as this immigration lead to severe problems amongst groups of different cultural backgrounds.
> People could (and probably would) still live in communities with common cultural and religious ties, even in a world without national borders.And, in this world of international borders, people from disparate backgrounds manage to immigrate and integrate just fine.
Those groups living clustered together isn't integration but segregation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there are confounding variables; population density in particular jumps out. But once you acknowledge that population density has enough negative causal impact through various channels on native fertility to be worth explicitly controlling for, you've already rejected mozumder's model: what effect does immigration have on population density?
Why would one acknowledge that population density has a "negative causal impact" without evidence of such? You can argue that density and fertility are correlated, sure, but causation is a much higher bar. Why would you restrict the model such that you assume that any increase in density at any starting level of density would decrease fertility? Why would you assume that without evidence?
There are a lot of papers which cover this. Starting with a Google search on population density and fertility rate, without including "causes" in the search, the top academic results I get are: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781... https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503981 http://paa2004.princeton.edu/papers/41719
The population density-fertility rate assumption was not made without evidence.
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.
The lady who lives and babysits across the street from my sister does exactly this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
So many people miss this point. Most things in economics are positive sum games. But most people treat things like zero sum games (if someone gains something then I have less/am able to get less). But people produce products, people produce value. This is exactly why we have an economy. And it grows (meaning positive sum). We've left so much money and value on the table because of this.
Getting into Harvard is a zero sum game. Becoming a professor is a zero sum game.
Getting a job at New York Philharmonic is a zero sum game. Getting concert tickets is a zero sum game.
Getting a seat in the supreme court is a zero sum game.
Getting into Google is a zero sum game.
The fact that anyone can somehow obtain a "smart" phone does not mean that we are richer. Most people I know do not feel richer than 10 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minor note: I'm not sure why you mentioned one corrupt politician. I don't think it bolsters your point.
See my comment below. It's a useful anecdote because the politician in question wasn't merely corrupt. He turned Tower Hamlets into an area with the same political problems of Bangladesh itself - possible because so many of the people who lived there were also from Bangladesh and were willing to e.g. act as enforcers, sell votes, exploit or be exploited by religious loyalties, take part in electoral fraud and so on.…