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

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

#311

Post by prostoalex » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

gridaphobe wrote: post #291

prostoalex wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The income disparity is the game of numbers. When Jeff Bezos’ income increases due to the work of his US employees, people notice. When Saudi Arabian King’s net worth increases due to the work of his US employees (and employees of any affiliated companies controlled by Saudis), people don’t notice it as much, since the King does not file a personal tax return with IRS. If you were to strip everybody in the Forbes 100…

You rightly point out that income disparity metrics can be manipulated, but changing the calculation (eg by ignoring Bezos) does nothing to change the actual disparity, it just makes it harder to detect... So what exactly is your point?

That the stat is not only subject to manipulation, it’s pointless.

If every American shopped on Rakuten vs Amazon, bought Samsung vs Apple, searched on Yandex instead of Google, banked at Barclays vs Chase, took a Didi vs Uber, if every hedge fund manager was based in Zurich vs Greenwich, US income disparity would not be so jarring, as the wealth would accrue elsewhere, exporting the income disparity with it.

Would the US economy be better off?

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

#312

Post by ipsocannibal » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 4:26 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #247

ipsocannibal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've considered this and deemed it to be false. A great counter example is Imperial China around 1300-1400AD. They were fantastically wealthy and politically stable yet "western values" did not develop.

“Western values” didn’t develop in the West until the second half of the 20th century, so I’m not sure that’s a good argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

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

#313

Post by lgregg » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 4:26 AM UTC

lord_ring_11 wrote: post #287

rayiner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Details? I dont know a german to ask!

I lived in Germany for a few months so I got to have a few conversations. Most of their transport network was built by Turkish men that were imported. That's why Turkish street food is everywhere. They also were not able to bring their families as migrant workers but I think lots slowly migrated in the late 80s to early 00s.

They also have had issues with "assimilation" for every ethnic culture but lately MENA has caused a divide. It resulted in them limiting their intake. You can read a lot about it via the recent refugee crisis. There were stories of gangs of migrants roaming the streets, I only heard about a case of rape but there might be more. I don't think its right to throw everyone together in the clump referenced. However, from talking with folks there — their collective German culture and German ways of doing things is very important to them. If you don't act or think German you certainly are an outsider. I also never got the vibe it was ever a skin color thing, but it is a language and cultural assimilation thing.

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

#314

Post by steamer25 » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 4:31 AM UTC

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.S. Constitution, etc. and make friendly overtures. Even if the U.S. didn't annex them they could probably pull favorable trade status and military alliances while retaining local self-government.

*This is a little melodramatic but it gives one a good sense of the scale of the problem with trying to bring everyone to western countries: https://youtu.be/KCcFNL7EmwY

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

#315

Post by simplecomplex » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 4:53 AM UTC

furgooswft13 wrote: post #294

intopieces wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because the article proposes a scenario where welfare and public assistance would readily apply to newcomers too. FTA: “If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.”

> 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

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

#316

Post by simplecomplex » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 4:56 AM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #296

One area's net immigration is another area's brain drain. Look around your own country and ask if the movement to the richer areas has helped the areas the people come from, or the all the people that were there in the first place or even really those that did the moving. We keep recreating the slums of 1840s Manchester with every cycle and still we never learn. Never take open borders arguments from anybody with a l…

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

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

#317

Post by steamer25 » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 5:03 AM UTC

steamer25 wrote: post #269

Prior to reading the article, I'm struck by the thought of a possible analogy: An internet with no firewalls and free, unauthenticated root access would be $78T richer.

FWIW, I read the article and found lots of hand-waving. Strong counter-examples came quickly to mind for most of it's claims.

It's saying pretty much the same thing as, "Think of how productive the world would be if there were no more crimes or wars! What if we stopped having police or armies!" Yup--that sure would be nice but I'm not going to hold my breath.

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

#318

Post by rsj_hn » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 5:08 AM UTC

These are the same geniuses that were cheerleading financial deregulation before the crash. Before that, they were cheering liberalization of international capital flows before the asian crash. After, they were cheering austerity.

The economist is like an anti-oracle.

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

#319

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #187

ubernostrum wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Ask yourself why the company moves its operations to a "low-capital" country. Because migration restrictions prohibit them from hiring those same low-wage workers domestically. >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. Because those companies bring capital with them, increasing capital intensity in the destination…

Because migration restrictions prohibit them from hiring those same low-wage workers domestically.

Is it really migration restrictions?

Or is it arbitrage on minimum wage (which may not even exist somewhere else), environmental regulations, worker safety rules, etc.?

If developed western nations threw open their borders, they wouldn't simultaneously repeal all that stuff.

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

#320

Post by int_19h » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 5:47 AM UTC

jonnrb wrote: post #234

Eridrus wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking a bit about this lately, and I think you could achieve this slowly in the US with an expansion of the visa lottery process.

My thoughts too, and the article sort of says this at the end. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges. This is what the US does right now through the lottery system but it's just so restr…

What do you mean? The lottery just gives you a green card. Once you have it, you can apply for naturalization in 5 years. Once you get your citizenship, you have pretty much all the rights and benefits as any other citizen, except you can't get elected president.