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

331–340 of 402 posts

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

#331

Post by int_19h »

forkLding wrote: post #292
lord_ring_11 wrote: post #272

I am ok with selective immigration. But open borders is truly crazy idea at this point. If we open borders like suggested next thing we know will be - developed countries becoming like garbage dumps we see in other countries. There is a reason why some countires fall into downward spirals. If u get its people en mass without filters, you get that mentality too. Why dont we experiment in smaller scale with liberal com…

Isnt that how the Facebook/Google/Msft works right now with visa sponsorship and their remote hiring/working policies? My friend working for Google moved later to Paris, France because she could and is still working for Google in France, I think companies like Facebook (in Ireland and certain European countries) or Google (literally everywhere in Europe) or even IBM (IBM has quite a few major offices in Asia, not sur…

They're limited by the H1-B quota.

And remote work usually pays local rates (proportionally better than average, but still), not what you'd get in US.

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

#332

Post by int_19h »

hueving wrote: post #278
lord_ring_11 wrote: post #272

I am ok with selective immigration. But open borders is truly crazy idea at this point. If we open borders like suggested next thing we know will be - developed countries becoming like garbage dumps we see in other countries. There is a reason why some countires fall into downward spirals. If u get its people en mass without filters, you get that mentality too. Why dont we experiment in smaller scale with liberal com…

You can have open borders or a good social safety net. Pick one.

You can have both, if social safety net does not automatically apply to every resident.

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

#333

Post by incompatible »

steamer25 wrote: post #314
incompatible wrote: post #279

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of cramming the vast majority of the world's population into the subset of countries that are relatively wealthy and well-run. In practice, the cramming continues within those countries into the most favoured cities. If we are thinking of pie-in-the-sky ideas like open borders, then why also try to think of a way to spread good government and wealth across all parts of the world? I.e…

Yes, I've often thought we can't all live in North America* but we could all live like Americans if the freedom loving peoples of the world were given a chance to import the better parts of our culture. E.g., what if the Mexicans who thought that becoming an American would be better than remaining Mexican all moved to northern Mexico, seceded and tried to live like they were the 51st state. They could adopting the U.…

I think that would lead to a nasty civil war in Mexico; it would be unlikely to leave many people better off.

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

#334

Post by gls2ro »

wycs wrote: post #58
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?

It depends. As we know intelligence is highly heritable and an extremely large component of one's productivity, it may make more sense, in terms of having an impact, for extremely high-IQ people to focus on have a large number of children, especially considering how rare having a large number of children is among those with high IQs.

I think the “intelligence” we are talking it is more a mix between nature and _nurture_.

So it is not enough just for people with high IQ to have many children.

The adult needs to follow their passion/dream/work to develop the intelligence and contribute back to the society.

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

#335

Post by int_19h »

qaq wrote: post #326
int_19h wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty accurate if you consider immigration overall, and for one simple reason: US has the most extensive family immigration eligibility, at least among developed countries. In Canada, for example, you can't sponsor your grandparents for permanent residence; but in US, you can. This is also why US is the only developed country dominated by family rather than skilled immigration, by the way.

Sure you can and if grandma is in good health she might survive 10-15 years wait time for this category. "In Canada, for example, you can't sponsor your grandparents" https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

I stand corrected wrt this particular category and Canada. It's not the case for most other countries, though. And it is still the case that more family members are eligible in US than most other places. That US has a lot more family immigration compared to others is also an objective fact.

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

#337

Post by zeth___ »

int_19h wrote: post #328
zeth___ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth to who? An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen. This means that while theoretically 'wealth' is increasing it is increasing in such a way that those who are in the position to pay wages keep more of them and those in the position to receive them get much less. In short then what's the point of an average in a power law distr…

> An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen. Why not use them, if they're more qualified? The only reason why employers can fleece immigrants in US today, is because immigrants are effectively "locked in" - e.g. if you're on H1-B, you can't change employers without going through a bunch of paperwork; and if you get fired, they just ki…

>But remove those, and why do you think an immigrant would demand to be paid any less? We're not stupid.

Because you're poor. An Indian in India makes 1/20th the wage a US citizen makes in the US. If they get 1/15th you have just received a huge raise and are happy.

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

#338

Post by jopsen »

jopsen wrote: post #254

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 wit…

Okay, maybe this was ill phrased :)

My point is that the article argues that a "2nd class of citizen" is better than closed borders.

In many ways those arguments make sense. However, that doesn't make any of this feel better.

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

#339

Post by csomar »

neilwilson wrote: post #325
simplecomplex wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equating someone moving to the town you live in (wherever they come from) and breaking into your home is disingenuous and childish.

That's not what I'm say is it, and you present no actual argument against the analogy. Just an emotional reaction - a tell for cognitive dissonance. The difference between open borders and visa control is simply this. Do you believe that somebody should be able to walk into your house, sit down on the front sofa and demand Pringles, which you have to then provide. Or do you believe that somebody should knock on your…

I agree with you but evolution predicts globalization. Instead of moving backward, we have to figure out how to move forward.

The world will be a place where money is what guarantees safety. State welfare will be no more. No place is safe if it is free. Access to infrastructure will be open but cost money regardless of your citizenship.

If you think the future will be like that, you should stop paying taxes (as in contributing to the old model), move to a tax free jurisdiction and start saving funds (as in make sure you can live in a gated society).

The old model is collapsing (governments, countries, borders, citizenship) albeit slowly. Governments are getting more indebted and less efficient. Corps are making record gains. International trade is still thriving despite all. And the Internet is still here.

Move to the new model my friend :)

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

#340

Post by int_19h »

zeth___ wrote: post #337
int_19h wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen. Why not use them, if they're more qualified? The only reason why employers can fleece immigrants in US today, is because immigrants are effectively "locked in" - e.g. if you're on H1-B, you can't change employers without going through a bunch of paperwork; and if you get fired, they just ki…

>But remove those, and why do you think an immigrant would demand to be paid any less? We're not stupid. Because you're poor. An Indian in India makes 1/20th the wage a US citizen makes in the US. If they get 1/15th you have just received a huge raise and are happy.

You forget that if you live and work in US, your cost of living is also the same as any native. 1/15th would only be attractive to person in India at Indian prices.

Besides, why would someone take 1/15th, if they can have the whole thing? I mean, by a similar logic, you'd expect people in US readily undercut each other at 1/2th, 1/4th etc in a race to the bottom. But we don't.

Post reply on HN