A world of free movement would be $78T richer • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by mistermann » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #92

davnicwil wrote: post #63

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.

> So many people miss this point.

I'd be careful making assumptions about the reasons people don't agree with you.

Taking the grandparent comment: "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 don't disagree with this point because I believe economics is a zero some game, I disagree with it because it's wrong (it takes "everyone being better off" for granted), and I will be on guard to oppose any other initiatives (say, open borders) suggested by a group that thinks like this.

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

#102

Post by burfog » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #59

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #11

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…

>People from the United States who are unable to work for whatever reason, migrate to Sweden. I think you're overestimating the number of Americans who would have the means to do so, despite not having an income.

Hawaii buys 1-way tickets for homeless people. Picture that on a grand scale, with the United States buying 1-way tickets.

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

#103

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #53

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.

A world where we printed $78 trillion dollars and gave it out to whomever would also be $78 trillion dollars richer.

That isn't how it works. Inflation is a thing.

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

#104

Post by throw2016 » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

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 unending spate of banking frauds, VW, Theranos, price fixing in the pharmaceutical sector, the opiod crisis, gerry mandering, widespread lobbying and political corruption seems to contradict your position.

To suggest corruption is a 'third world thing' and does not impact the western world seems to be disconnected from reality.

To talk about 'western values' in the same context is dangerously close to bigotry and jingoism.

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

#105

Post by mistermann » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

vivekd wrote: post #78

One could argue that this was tried on a micro scale with the EU. While there is an argument to be made that it did bring some economic growth but nothing near as close to the growth advertised by the economist.

I've seen some video on YouTube that would suggest it also brought some negative unintended consequences with it. Some people believe that sort of thing should be included in an economic analysis, somewhat similarly to how some people advocate that environmental costs should be included in energy cost analysis.

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

#106

Post by hello_1234 » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

P5Wl wrote: post #71

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 emp…

I don't know where you got your information from. It's half true. No, immigrants do not have abysmal rates of employment. The unemployment rate for foreign-born persons in the United States was 4.1 percent in 2017 compared to 4.4 percent for native-born persons (Dept of Labor, Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-born Workers Summary). Immigrants do use more entitlement than native-borns, but that's because immigrants tend to have more children. Given how low the fertility rate for native-borns is, the entitlement that immigrants use to bring up their children probably pays itself off once the children grow up and contribute to the economy.

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

#107

Post by repolfx » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

throw2016 wrote: post #104

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 unending spate of banking frauds, VW, Theranos, price fixing in the pharmaceutical sector, the opiod crisis, gerry mandering, widespread lobbying and political corruption seems to contradict your position. To suggest corruption is a 'third world thing' and does not impact the western world seems to be disconnected from reality. To talk about 'western values' in the same context is dangerously close to bigotry and…

That's a strawman - I never claimed there was no corruption in the west. The Economist claims there's much less in the west than elsewhere and this is in fact the core of the entire article - the assumption that with open borders globally, corruption as a drag on the global economy would shrivel because everyone would move to much less corrupt places. That's where they get the 78 trillion dollar figure from.

And it's also the Economist that ponders the problem of what happens if the immigrants vote in an Islamist government (their solution: immigrants may never be allowed to vote, i.e. taxation without representation on a massive scale, which is hardly a western value).

Also, I'm not sure Theranos is a case of corruption. Seems more like a delusional founder who got in too deep and was eventually discovered and dealt with through the sorts of mechanisms (the free press, medical regulation) that is usually under the umbrella of "western values".

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

#108

Post by trythisthought » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

after visiting 52 countries i came to the same conclusion, it is not like we are not implicitly sharing the space and all our physical objects with everyone else by proxy of the same space encapsulating them and their presence on one planet, nobody is taking their own personal lawnmower off the planet just yet... we are so indoctrinated that we fail to see that at the physical level everything is shared and everything is recycled if you look at the lifetime of any object. however in a system which has gateways at every speedbump the potential for a few actors to make big profits is so high that they resist anything else...

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

#109

Post by s73v3r_ » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

branchless wrote: post #28

sudhirj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of good child care options pulls half of all reproductive people out of the workforce.

people looking after their own children are: 1. providing good child care 2. adding value

At the same time, they're not earning income. They're also losing out on experience in their field, putting them at a disadvantage when they do go back to the workforce.

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

#110

Post by s73v3r_ » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

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?

That's a pretty disingenuous argument. If the pie gets bigger, cost of living also goes up, and so does income inequality.