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

251–260 of 402 posts

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

#251

Post by patrickg_zill »

pembrook wrote: post #222
patrickg_zill wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A global race to the bottom is what the Economist, and its owners the Rothschilds, want. An atomized replaceable-cog society made up on indistinguishable consumer units.

I'm amazed that the name "Rothschild" still has the power to stir up conspiracy theories in 2018. Rothschild holds only a small minority stake in The Economist. I think it's less that this article wants to create a race to the bottom, and more that you fear the idea of the 1st world life you lucked into by birth being disrupted by a large influx of poor people who weren't so lucky in the birth lottery. Jeez these new…

Did the Rothschilds go bankrupt, and lose all their money, or something?

They (the family collectively, or the family trust, however you wish to address their finances) were billionaires by the 1850s, at the latest.

"On July 18, 1815, a courier working for Rothschild informed the English government that Napoleon appeared to be suffering defeat at Waterloo... Rothschild began selling all of his bonds, encouraging rumors that Napoleon had won and that English government paper would soon be worthless. Due to Rothschild's reputation as an influential and respected investor, the panicked English public followed his lead. The mass selling resulted in a total collapse of the English stock exchange.

"It was then that Rothschild's agents began snatching up bonds and stock at record-low prices. Two days later, when Wellington's envoy confirmed that Napoleon Bonaparte had indeed suffered a crushing defeat, Nathan Rothschild was effectively in control of the English stock exchange. As of 2015, the English government was still paying back money owed to the Rothschild family from this Napoleonic maneuver."

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/history-rothschild-fami...

I don't believe in your (and the Economist's) false dilemma that my 1st world has to suck and I have to work for slave wages in order for people in the 3rd world to have better lives.

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

#252

Post by qaq »

ThomPete wrote: post #245
qaq wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) legal? 2) Historical laws vs current laws 3) Adjust for population size Even for say Software Eng. moving to US is a very f@#$up process, but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years.

Its easier to get into the us than the eu so thats simply wrong. The us have way more ways too.

You've got be kidding the only realistic option for US is H1B majority of EU countries have simple visa's for Software Eng. with no quotas. My former employees from Ukraine are in Germany, Austria, Norway, Ireland, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic (and outside of EU Australia, Canada) the process was 2-3 month on avg. for EU countries and they become residents pretty quickly with no quotas.

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

#253

Post by tomp »

pembrook wrote: post #222
patrickg_zill wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A global race to the bottom is what the Economist, and its owners the Rothschilds, want. An atomized replaceable-cog society made up on indistinguishable consumer units.

I'm amazed that the name "Rothschild" still has the power to stir up conspiracy theories in 2018. Rothschild holds only a small minority stake in The Economist. I think it's less that this article wants to create a race to the bottom, and more that you fear the idea of the 1st world life you lucked into by birth being disrupted by a large influx of poor people who weren't so lucky in the birth lottery. Jeez these new…

> you fear the idea of the 1st world life you lucked into by birth being disrupted by a large influx of poor people who weren't so lucky in the birth lottery.

You say that is if that fear isn’t legitimate.

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

#254

Post by jopsen »

Closed borders is a form of discrimination. But if we open them and want to maintain our standard of living we'll have to make them second class citizens.

As the article argues, this is better than excluding them from our labour market.

But discrimination like designating people as 2nd class citizens is probably more repundant to people's sense of ethics than closed borders.

And perhaps these moral tabu's are not without importance. I'm not sure, but "closed borders" do seem worse than a 2nd class of citizens.

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

#255

Post by qaq »

troubador55 wrote: post #248
qaq wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) legal? 2) Historical laws vs current laws 3) Adjust for population size Even for say Software Eng. moving to US is a very f@#$up process, but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years.

>"but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years." Not at all. I know a couple that tried to move to Canada after Trump got elected but were shocked to find out they'd have to deposit 250k USD with the Canadian government for 5 years in order to be considered for permanantly residency. Not only that, the demand for people to m…

If they get enough points (which is trivial) you get PR even without job offer.

edited: strong lang.

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

#256

Post by retox »

Globalists only think in terms of profit and not of culture, tradition and the mental well-being of the average person. There are plenty of studies which show that homogeneous societies are happier, more trusting and more engaged in the political system as well as their fellow man.

Reducing people down to a line in a calculation of your bottom line is dehumanising.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...

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

#257

Post by joefranklinsr »

themagician wrote: post #240
joefranklinsr wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was true, then US being the biggest immigrant-friendly country in the world, would do so in a heartbeat. But neither the government nor corporations are advocating this. America currently has the biggest economy in the world, an average of $58,000 income, a low 3.9% unemployment rate while enjoying GDP growth rate of close to 5% in Q2, as well as close to 220,000 new jobs every month, and growth in wage incre…

A lot of how we “got to here” has to do with being all the was left after WWII. Trying to pretend like all the things you advocate for are the reasons for prosperity is silly. Your statement is basically, “things are good now and they are good because ” There are other periods of time that have been as good or better with a different political platform. In the 1950s (when America was “great”) the top tax rate was 90%…

Sure, and we could have blown the lead in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s, the 10s, etc. But we didn't. We valued entrepreneurship, hard work, and being the best.

50s was an anomaly with a 36% growth rate, like you said, because we were all that were left. The economy currently is very stable, diversified, and fast growing still for its size, some 70 years later.

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

#258

Post by troubador55 »

Free movement will drive down wages and labor costs. Labor will lose value while capital will increase in value.

Combine this dynamic with our current world in which the gulf between a small elite class and everyone else is widening with the middle class in between deteriorating, and you have a recipe for disaster. The modern welfare state that exists in Europe and to a (much) lesser extent in the US would crumble from the stress of millions of new individuals flooding the economy at the low end and being stuck there because of economic dynamics beyond anyone's control.

Rather than importing the impoverished from poor nations to rich nations, we should be working together as a community of nations to establish law and order where there is lawlessness. Once law, order and in particular property rights are followed and enforced, wealth can and will grow as it has in places like China and Vietnam.

Encouraging freedom of movement will result in poor regions becoming even more destitute. As one of my wealthy friends from Pakistan lamented to me once when considering whether she should move to Canada or stay in Pakistan, "if people like myself flee Pakistan, who will stay to build it into a strong and prosperous nation?"

Overall, free movement would be a terrible idea for most people. This article does a really poor job of considering the issue.

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

#259

Post by qaq »

dyarosla wrote: post #249
qaq wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) legal? 2) Historical laws vs current laws 3) Adjust for population size Even for say Software Eng. moving to US is a very f@#$up process, but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years.

The link shows percentage numbers as well- relative to total world foreigner population as well as relative to each country’s population.

and point (1) ?

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

#260

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

joefranklinsr wrote: post #200
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…

If this was true, then US being the biggest immigrant-friendly country in the world, would do so in a heartbeat. But neither the government nor corporations are advocating this. America currently has the biggest economy in the world, an average of $58,000 income, a low 3.9% unemployment rate while enjoying GDP growth rate of close to 5% in Q2, as well as close to 220,000 new jobs every month, and growth in wage incre…

Increased immigration of low-class workers is politically unpopular in the heartland. In fact, even importing certain skilled workers is unpopular among the rank-and-file, as casual criticism of H1-Bs shows.

Instead, since the 1970s, US thought leaders and business leaders of both parties long pursued similar trade policies that embraced deregulation and open markets, which allowed similar gains to be realized by US businesses operating in a globalized world (e.g. outsourcing, offshoring, integrated supply chains).

SV companies pay generously because dozens of companies flush with cash are all competing for the same pool of veterans of other companies. Any company that has less profit per employee (most small businesses) can scarcely afford to pay a premium for rank-and-file employees with domain experience; nor is there enough effortless mobility in specialty skilled manufacturing roles to make such escalating wages necessary.

Post reply on HN