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

361–370 of 402 posts

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

#361

Post by Viliam1234 »

gls2ro wrote: post #334
wycs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If intelligence is a mix between nature and nurture, why not support both? Good child care and good education...

Smart people having more kids is not the full solution, but it is a part of the solution, and a neglected one. People already talk about improving education a lot. But it seems that education can only go so far -- some children get better results unschooled than other children get in schools.

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

#362

Post by patrickg_zill »

simplecomplex wrote: post #315
furgooswft13 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> restrict their access to welfare benefits This is a libertarian pipe-dream that will never happen in the current political climate. They envision free movement and no welfare/safety-net (for at least alien immigrants). Even if that is federal policy, states and cities will pick up the slack. The rest? Just another way to end up with millions of undocumented/illegal immigrants (like we have currently with impossible…

Estimates show undocumented immigrants are net contributors to welfare, they pay taxes but they can’t apply for most benefits that they’re paying into. Half of undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Source: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/undocumentedtaxes.pdf

Yeah, that is total BS. BTW they are not "undocumented" as if their dog ate their passport: they are illegal immigrants.

The total local, state, federal burden of all the benefits they receive, greatly outweighs the pitiful amount they pay in taxes. 2017 stats indicate $19B paid into the system, $135B in services taken out: a net $116B loss to America. https://www.scribd.com/document/359997156/Cost-Study-2017-We...

Even if you say that "FAIR is biased", and discount the numbers by 50%, you still have a negative impact of over $50B a year.

California, ALONE, spends over $30 billion a year on services for illegals.

$10.6 billion in paid taxes: according to your link "overall effective tax rate of 6.4 percent". Explain how that is fair, please...

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

#363

Post by burfog »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #179
burfog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Proper child care means a high level of interaction with well-educated people who speak crisply perfect English. So 95% of children aren't cared for properly? Elitist bull.

What do you have against striving to be elite? Being elite is admirable. One should strive to rise in society, not sink. Success beats failure.

It's a matter of degree of course, and there is no perfection, but that doesn't mean one should be complacent with less than the best.

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

#364

Post by erikpukinskis »

adventured wrote: post #208
remarkEon wrote: post #188

>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This is actually an interesting idea worth thinking about more. If the concern for those on the right is that more immigrants to the US would cause a permanent electoral Blue Wall by flipping Texas in a couple election cyc…

There's a lot more to that problem than mere political vote flipping or blue waves. Importing Latin American politics by way of culture would be a terrifying disaster. There is hardly a place on earth with less stable government systems or human rights protections. Transparency International ranks Latin America as the worst place on earth for corruption, only rivaled by a few parts of third world Africa. Latin Americ…

I am open to your theory that the US hasn’t had a significant influence on Latin American corruption...

But I’d need more than a base assertion... can you address specifically the theory that the U.S. has deliberately propped up corrupt governments sympathetic to US corporations to the exclusion of democratically elected ones?

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

#366

Post by simplecomplex »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #362
simplecomplex wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Estimates show undocumented immigrants are net contributors to welfare, they pay taxes but they can’t apply for most benefits that they’re paying into. Half of undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Source: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/undocumentedtaxes.pdf

Yeah, that is total BS. BTW they are not "undocumented" as if their dog ate their passport: they are illegal immigrants. The total local, state, federal burden of all the benefits they receive, greatly outweighs the pitiful amount they pay in taxes. 2017 stats indicate $19B paid into the system, $135B in services taken out: a net $116B loss to America. https://www.scribd.com/document/359997156/Cost-Study-2017-We... E…

Most citizens are not net contributors to welfare. It sounds like you dislike welfare, not immigrants.

People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings.

But I get it... freedom and markets when it benefits you and exclusion and socialism when it doesn’t.

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

#367

Post by Matticus_Rex »

burfog wrote: post #363
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proper child care means a high level of interaction with well-educated people who speak crisply perfect English. So 95% of children aren't cared for properly? Elitist bull.

What do you have against striving to be elite? Being elite is admirable. One should strive to rise in society, not sink. Success beats failure. It's a matter of degree of course, and there is no perfection, but that doesn't mean one should be complacent with less than the best.

Just as a matter of logistics, very few people can have that version of "proper" child care because only so many people are qualified to give it, and there are competing uses for those resources. Feel free to strive for the best, but "the best" is not the only proper thing, lest "proper" be meaningless.

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

#368

Post by furgooswft13 »

simplecomplex wrote: post #366
patrickg_zill wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is total BS. BTW they are not "undocumented" as if their dog ate their passport: they are illegal immigrants. The total local, state, federal burden of all the benefits they receive, greatly outweighs the pitiful amount they pay in taxes. 2017 stats indicate $19B paid into the system, $135B in services taken out: a net $116B loss to America. https://www.scribd.com/document/359997156/Cost-Study-2017-We... E…

Most citizens are not net contributors to welfare. It sounds like you dislike welfare, not immigrants. People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings. But I get it... freedom and markets when it benefits you and exclusion and socialism when it doesn’t.

I don't get it, "Estimates show undocumented immigrants are net contributors to welfare" yet "Most citizens are not net contributors to welfare". Is it because undocumented immigrants "pay taxes but they can’t apply for most benefits that they’re paying into" (even though in many jurisdictions they can and do)? Even if true, there are far more legal citizens in the US than alien immigrants, and most of those are not on welfare. I just can't square what you are saying here with your previous comment.

> People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings.

That's great, but it still affects people already legally here who also want to "work, live, and provide a better future for their children". The H-1B program gets a lot of ire from these parts because it has a downward effect on salaries and job availability for US citizens in the tech sector. But I guess that's no problem when it's the same deal just for jobs none of us would ever consider.

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

#369

Post by patrickg_zill »

simplecomplex wrote: post #366
patrickg_zill wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is total BS. BTW they are not "undocumented" as if their dog ate their passport: they are illegal immigrants. The total local, state, federal burden of all the benefits they receive, greatly outweighs the pitiful amount they pay in taxes. 2017 stats indicate $19B paid into the system, $135B in services taken out: a net $116B loss to America. https://www.scribd.com/document/359997156/Cost-Study-2017-We... E…

Most citizens are not net contributors to welfare. It sounds like you dislike welfare, not immigrants. People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings. But I get it... freedom and markets when it benefits you and exclusion and socialism when it doesn’t.

I responded with facts, that showed your numbers are not based in reality. I don't dispute that they are human beings...

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

#370

Post by Latteland »

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…

The higher growth in q2 is temporary, because we juiced our economy with the tax cut for rich people and tax change to allow companies to bring money from overseas and pay it out to shareholders. In the 5-10 year period, we'll have significantly increased our national debt for this temporary cut.
Post reply on HN