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

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

#161

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #146

rory096 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by moving to a richer country, people become automatically more productive: >> Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. T…

Moving to a high-capital country means the fruits of your labor are multiplied because you can take advantage of that capital to increase your productivity. In the world of perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational, perfectly-enlightenedly-self-interested frictionless spherical humans, maybe. Here on Earth, companies move their operations out of high-capital countries on a regular basis.

How does that even remotely follow? We're talking about an individual's productivity, not a firm's profitability.

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

#162

Post by ipsocannibal » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

UncleEntity wrote: post #151

ipsocannibal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 livi…

I think you confuse the proliferation of techno-toys with quality of life. The same could be said of the proliferation of radio, automobiles, etc.

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

#163

Post by kbenson » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:03 PM UTC

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, no?

No, not necessarily. It's more about availability. Even if you do assume it's "professional" childcare in some manner, it's one of the easiest small businesses to start. The regulations are strict, but the requirements are cheap beyond location and food.

My wife ran a daycare out of our house for a short period when our children were small, as it was more cost effective than having two children in daycare elsewhere.

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

#164

Post by badestrand » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:04 PM UTC

hello_1234 wrote: post #106

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 immigra…

> No, immigrants do not have abysmal rates of employment

I think it depends on the specific form of migration to that country. For example the USA or Switzerland have very high skilled people coming to their country. In Germany too, but there was and is also a large influx of very uneducated migrants. Currently 55% of all welfare recipients in Germany are people with a migration background which shows that the opportunities/capabilities are not equal.

I do think though that welfare can still work with free movement, it is just that there would need to be a similar level in all/many countries.

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

#165

Post by ascorbic » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

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.

The increase in wealth from someone moving from a poor to a rich country is massive, and far more than the marginal benefit to an employer from hiring them rather than a slightly more expensive alternative person.

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

#166

Post by mozumder » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

ddorian43 wrote: post #141

mozumder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure we can work out a deal that'll make everyone happy. It might take some changes in our laws as well, but it can happen.

Yep. Another 9/11 will get everyone on board.

Why would it not? The government didn't bar whites from traveling after Oklahoma City..

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

#167

Post by albertgoeswoof » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

alanz1223 wrote: post #133

ahh yes, open the borders and import every type of third worlder into western countries for the sake of profiting over cheap labor... Let us forget about the clash in cultures, and how unrestricted immigration leaves the native population in a worse off state by rising housing prices, demographic replacement and stagnant wages. I have experienced first hand the effects of such policies here in California. This articl…

> Why is it that more developed nations have to find solutions for failed states by re-homing the population which voted for those same policies instead of leaving them to fight and improve the conditions in their own countries.

Because developed nations have a vested interest in keeping international peace where possible as it is good for trade and national security.

You’re also assuming every country is a fair democracy, and that they can resolve issues without international support.

Remember that every developed country (including your own) has only been able to develop by leveraging cheaper labour and goods from 3rd world countries over the past 300 years, we are all very closely linked, whether you like it or not.

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

#168

Post by ubernostrum » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #161

ubernostrum wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving to a high-capital country means the fruits of your labor are multiplied because you can take advantage of that capital to increase your productivity. In the world of perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational, perfectly-enlightenedly-self-interested frictionless spherical humans, maybe. Here on Earth, companies move their operations out of high-capital countries on a regular basis.

How does that even remotely follow? We're talking about an individual's productivity, not a firm's profitability.

Ask yourself why the company moves its operations to a "low-capital" country.

And while you're at it, ask how companies justify that as a boon for the country they're moving to, then reconcile with the original statement.

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

#169

Post by megaman22 » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

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.

I dunno. I was at the mercy of semi-literate, chain-smoking trailer trash, and I turned out alright. The bar is very low in childcare.

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

#170

Post by rosser » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

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.

What about the research indicating improved cognitive capabilities in adults who became multilingual as children? Isn't it just as likely that children who grow up exposed to multiple cultures end up better able to maneuver through a complicated, multi-cultural world?

Hearing nothing but "crisply perfect English" as children robs them of this gift, and normalizes exclusion to them — at the level of awareness that all of the lessons we learn at that tender age: too deeply even to notice, let alone change, without considerable effort, or some specific motivating factor or event (which, having internalized exclusion, is structurally less likely to happen, in the first place).

To me, that's improper child care.