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

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

#341

Post by zeth___ » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 9:17 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #340

zeth___ wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

People in the US have to support a family at US living standards. Indians on the other hand either have their family in India or are used to living in conditions that Americans balk at, multiple people per room, no lawn, one car or less per family.

Listening to the dumps some of my co workers live in I can see why median hourly wages have not increased in the last 40 years.

This is political economy 101. One of Malthus's suggestions for reducing the mortality rate was getting exotic materials to become staples of life so food wouldn't be the limiting factor of population.

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

#342

Post by qaq » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 9:57 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #335

qaq wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In UK you can and also in most(all?) EU countries and without 10-15 years wait time.

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

#343

Post by rdlecler1 » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 10:30 AM UTC

This is a idealistic thought experiment, but Europe is still reeling from the the Syrian refugee crisis and that is just one small country. Throwing open boarders when there’s differential welfare systems would be chaos. The world wouldn’t be $78T richer, it would be $78T poorer because it would lead to widespread civil war. Even if the author was right about the economic impacts she is discounting people’s tolerance for change, especially is a country’s conservative faction. For developed nations it would effectively be asking for forfiteture.

The author uses Greece as an example, but Greece has nowhere the poverty of much of the developing world (and that’s a big number).

What incentive is there for the average middle class American to partake in such a grand experiment? Look at what happened when you introduced scarcity to an educated and industrious population after WW1. Mass genocide.

And let’s not forget housing inflation in developed countries. Immigrants are not going to head to Reno, they’re going to go to cities like NY, SF, LA, London—cities that they’ve heard about and where there are already large immigrant communities. Good luck adding another million people to NY over a three year period.

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

#344

Post by teaspoons » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

rdlecler1 wrote: post #343

This is a idealistic thought experiment, but Europe is still reeling from the the Syrian refugee crisis and that is just one small country. Throwing open boarders when there’s differential welfare systems would be chaos. The world wouldn’t be $78T richer, it would be $78T poorer because it would lead to widespread civil war. Even if the author was right about the economic impacts she is discounting people’s tolerance…

"The world wouldn’t be $78T richer, it would be $78T poorer because it would lead to widespread civil war"

Nope, 90% of people would stay where they are. Most people don't like migrating: to uproot yourself and your family from the land, culture and language you love is a big deal and people only do it when the have no other choice.

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

#345

Post by monort » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 11:17 AM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #2

Utterly ridiculous rubbish. The reason why Mexican immigrants make more money as mentioned in the article in the US would be erased under open borders. It would be a race to the bottom, globally.

Race to the bottom is what makes a progress.

Would you prefer to work a month to be able to afford a shirt, like it was just a few centuries before? Or do you prefer when "race to the bottom" made the cost of the same shirt into a few hours of work?

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

#346

Post by rdlecler1 » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 11:19 AM UTC

teaspoons wrote: post #344

rdlecler1 wrote: post #343

This is a idealistic thought experiment, but Europe is still reeling from the the Syrian refugee crisis and that is just one small country. Throwing open boarders when there’s differential welfare systems would be chaos. The world wouldn’t be $78T richer, it would be $78T poorer because it would lead to widespread civil war. Even if the author was right about the economic impacts she is discounting people’s tolerance…

"The world wouldn’t be $78T richer, it would be $78T poorer because it would lead to widespread civil war" Nope, 90% of people would stay where they are. Most people don't like migrating: to uproot yourself and your family from the land, culture and language you love is a big deal and people only do it when the have no other choice.

Okay and what about the migration of the other 700m people with most frequent destinations being US and Europe from the bottom quartile of countries by GDP?

Mexico has 125m people and the US has around 12m illegal aliens. Let’s generously assume that only half are from Mexico, that’s 5% of the population that was willing to take the risk to live in the US illegally. Now create an open boarder? You’d have 10% of Mexico moving to the US tomorrow. It’s human nature to want a better life and it’s also human nature to want to protect the life one already has.

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

#347

Post by qaq » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 11:27 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #321

qaq wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"immigrant-friendly" thats very far from being accurate. edit: strong lang.

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.

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

Sort by Net Migration Per 1,000 Inhabitants Australia 45.01 Canada 33.84 US 15.94

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

#348

Post by rayiner » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 12:13 PM UTC

albntomat0 wrote: post #298

rayiner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask Germany how trying to import a class of non-citizen workers worked out for them.

How did it go though? I've seen a large number of politically charged statements about it, but little actual fact (I've done some research, and would appreciate a competent citation)

Germany originally planned to bring Turkish guest workers for two years at a time on a non-immigration basis. Maintaining that temporary status proved impossible. In the oughts, Germany had to change its naturalization laws to provide a mechanism for permanent residency and citizenship. But decades of living as second-class non-citizens resulted in lack of assimilation: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/turkish-immigrat....

(The integration part is a touchy subject in Germany. My point more directed at the idea that you can have a country with a permanent class of non-citizen immigrant workers. You probably cannot do that in a liberal Western democracy.)

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

#349

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

qaq wrote: post #302

ThomPete wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

theres no quota on an O visa and you have L visas and a bunch of others on top of H1B plus the lottery plus 11 million illegal immigrants living and often working here even paying taxes. I can assure you IAm not kidding and that you should learn a little about just how open the US is compared to the EU.

How having 11 million illegal immigrants is being open :)? In Ireland it would take 2 month to get work visa that becomes PR after 2 years. L1 is only for transfers anyone that can qualify for US O visa are welcome anywhere in the world.

How many illegal immigrants are working in the EU. You don't just get a work visa. Believe me I have dealt with it as the owner of a company in Denmark hiring people from outside the EU.

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

#350

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 1:10 PM UTC

qaq wrote: post #304

ThomPete wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ive got into the us on an O1 and now have a EB1 green card. i also founded a fairly big agency in Denmark hiring people from around the world so yeah I would say i have experience :)

OK lets compare the process for Ireland, Poland, Germany to US. Especially time to PR.

You can get a J1 visa in 2 weeks which gives you 18months.

You can get an EB1 (greencard in 3 months if you qualify.

You can get an O/L/E visa in a few months same thing with H1b.

And you have way more ways to get in.