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

151–160 of 402 posts

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

#151

Post by UncleEntity »

ipsocannibal wrote: post #72
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?

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…

> Yet did there quality of life increase?

You seriously think poor people's quality of life hasn't increased in the last 50 years?

Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones.

I would argue that Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living for poor people than the last 50 years of social engineering but I know how much people like the downmod button...

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

#152

Post by geofft »

simonsarris wrote: post #140

At least they use "Potentially" in the subtitle, sheesh. "If we had open borders we'd be $X trillion richer" is silly. It makes the huge assumption that institutions would stay the same, or inexplicably trend better everywhere, instead of worse. There is no thesis for why this is so, it is hand-waved here. > Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Th…

> Why some countries used to have good institutions and now have dysfunctional ones. (Like say, Argentina, Lebanon, etc)

I believe the answer for Argentina is "right-wing US support of right-wing death squads because of a fear of communism" and for Lebanon is "The pro-Western president of Lebanon requested American military intervention against internal opposition, which the US was happy to do because of a fear of communism", right?

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

#153

Post by dna_polymerase »

krapp wrote: post #132
dna_polymerase wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 [..] doesn't seem well supported. 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…

>That is because we already let immigration happen It's also because national boundaries tend to be more about resource allocation and political necessity than the preservation of culture or religion. Look at the problems caused by the British Empire carving up the Middle East after World War 1. Now perhaps you might argue the national borders there should correspond more to local tribal and cultural identity (and ma…

> At one time, Americans felt that Irish and Chinese immigrants could never properly integrate... to say nothing about free Africans. Yet all of those groups have been unambiguously integrated.

The Irish are not so different from the people that made up America back then. The Chinese who come here flee a communist/socialist regime, they are more than happy to assimilate to capitalism and the American way of life.

> [..] There aren't always "severe problems" with immigrants from different cultural backgrounds. Sometimes there are, yes, but it isn't a rule of nature.

As I acknowledged above.

> Those aren't boolean states. Someone can maintain a connection to their heritage while still being a part of greater society.

Right, but living in segregated communities inside another country is not maintaining a connection to heritage but simply not integrating.

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

#154

Post by rectang »

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?

Even with a larger pie, the people with an ever diminishing share have less control over their lives, more stress, and more uncertainty. There is too great a power disparity arising as a result of inequality.

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

#155

Post by cheez »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #129

Open borders will, at first, cause downward pressure on wages, as the labor pool of workers able and willing to perform work for a lower price grows. The magnitude would be more pronounced than with what we've been currently able to observe with controlled borders, because the article proposes a scenario where welfare and public assistance would readily apply to newcomers too. In fact, there would be a growth in the…

Correct, the ones getting richer won't be the plebs.

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

#156

Post by goodpoint »

avip wrote: post #91
noncoml wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What's more valuable than raising happy kids? Submitting some paper to arxiv?

> What's more valuable than raising happy kids? Submitting some paper to arxiv?

Yes. This world would benefit from having less kids, no doubt. Also less helicopter parents and more science.

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

#157

Post by Theodores »

baybal2 wrote: post #131
mortenjorck wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the kind of interesting perspective one picks up from a good book or podcast series. Do you have one to recommend on this subject?

Well, this is all my own, near life long, research: what is power, how modern state came to be, and how one can manipulate it. Few interesting factoids from it: Did you know that theocracy vs bureaucracy was not a decided topic in Europe until mid 19 century? It was a single letter of a British envoy to China that shocked the crown so much as for it to institute the His Majesty Civil Service modelled after Chinese mo…

I wish I had a grandpa like yours.

Any links on any topics mentioned that you can share? Prusianness in particular.

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

#158

Post by vidarh »

burfog wrote: post #117
oldcynic wrote: post #20

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.

Proper child care means a high level of interaction with well-educated people who speak crisply perfect English. For the child, this is a time when they are developing language and cultural habits that will have a lifelong impact, ultimately impacting the quality of their employment and spouse. Immigrants will not provide that. It's hard enough finding non-immigrants who can provide it.

Nonsense. I speak English with a strong Scandinavian accept. My ex speaks RP ("posh" English). Our child minder speaks with a very noticeable South London accent.

Want to guess who he's taken after? His friends. He has a much more neutral accent than either one of us.

That's not to say your interaction or the childminders will have no impact, but if any single person has such a substantial impact on the way your child speaks, then you should be more concerned about their isolation than the English skill of one specific person they're interacting with.

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

#159

Post by UncleEntity »

repolfx wrote: post #85
trextrex wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I have considered that. It doesn't appear to be true. If it was, cases like Rahman's would not have happened. After moving from Bangladesh as a young person, and becoming surrounded by political stability and economic opportunity, he would have adopted western values and become an ordinary politician. So would the people in Tower Hamlets, which has a very large Bangladeshi immigrant population. In fact what happ…

I would love to visit this magical place you describe where ordinary politicians are the bedrock whence we judge the morality of the underlying society.

> Corruption, bribery, intimidation of voters, stuffing ballot boxes, buying political support, exploiting religion and race to gain support

Sounds like business as usual in Chicago...joking, of course I'm joking...

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

#160

Post by simonsarris »

geofft wrote: post #152
simonsarris wrote: post #140

At least they use "Potentially" in the subtitle, sheesh. "If we had open borders we'd be $X trillion richer" is silly. It makes the huge assumption that institutions would stay the same, or inexplicably trend better everywhere, instead of worse. There is no thesis for why this is so, it is hand-waved here. > Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Th…

> Why some countries used to have good institutions and now have dysfunctional ones. (Like say, Argentina, Lebanon, etc) I believe the answer for Argentina is "right-wing US support of right-wing death squads because of a fear of communism" and for Lebanon is "The pro-Western president of Lebanon requested American military intervention against internal opposition, which the US was happy to do because of a fear of co…

Around the early 1900's Argentina was the 10th(?) richest country in the world. Wiki:

> In 1913, the country's income per head was on a par with that of France and Germany, and far ahead of Italy's or Spain's.

Several bad government decisions changed that. No US support was needed to knock it off the list into a dizzying number of defaults.

The first Infamous Decade needed no help from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamous_Decade

(edited with more accurate dates)

Post reply on HN