If borders were open

https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724907-yes-it-would-be-disruptive-potential-gains-are-so-vast-objectors-could-be-bribed

by kawera • 9 years ago

69 139 9 years ago

economist.com

simonsarris• 9 years ago

A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer.

Yet they built the paywall.

There seem like a lot of obvious objections that are not addressed and raises more questions than it asks.

Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace

What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.

I think articles like this tend to simplify or handwave the caveats in unrealistic ways, so their result is always a lopsided analysis. Example of such a simplification:

But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.

Yeah they could, but most won't. See: The bay area, Boston, NYC. (A few do: Montreal, or Tokyo, which added more housing than all of California last year)

pram• 9 years ago

These guys basically believe in magic soil, and that the inhabitants of "rich countries" are inherently interchangeable. The institutions just magically appeared separate from culture and demographics.

ForHackernews5• 9 years ago

Institutions are mostly policies, procedures and process.

What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one? Would you rather work in a team of geniuses with no process, or a team of average developers who follow best practices?

kevindong• 9 years ago

I believe the article is talking about the (lack of) corruption and general respect for rule of law (and the implications it entails; such as a independent judiciary and fair/transparent trails).

The author really should've gone into detail and defended their assertion though.

GabrielBen• 9 years ago

A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer. Yet they built the paywall.

The actual analogy would be a world where you need to get a visa per-magazine to read the articles they have, to the which you might not qualify.

A newspaper-immigration-patrol would look at this comment of yours on HN and possible deny you access, you should watch out.

What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.

A great open question is what happens to institutions when there are culture changes. But bear in mind that without immigration, there would be no institutions in the U.S. whatsoever. It is a point of view of past immigration being great, but current and future immigration being bad, which I think it makes very little sense holistically speaking.

Yeah they could, but most won't.

There really isnt a limit on living space. The rent is high in places like the bay area precisely because moving there is still a good deal. Problems of residential prices are widely overstated.

Kazamai• 9 years ago

This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.

ForHackernews5• 9 years ago

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

mnm24• 9 years ago

Yeah, make the poor pay more

That's the solution!

They depend on government handouts or other donations and making them pay more will solve the problem now

fche14• 9 years ago

FTA:

open borders

also FTA:

why not charge them more for visas

Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

grayarea• 9 years ago

Do you really think that if a billion people wanted to migrate in a few months we would have anyway of stopping them? They would have to be motivated by something pretty terrible and yet allow them mobility at the same time. Like say a war. Which we see all the time.

ben_w5• 9 years ago

That isn't a major risk — why don't all the people living in relative poverty in your nation move to the richest district of your richest city?

skrowl• 9 years ago

Because they couldn't afford it. Straight-to-welfare refugees don't have to worry about generating income.

gumby2• 9 years ago

if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty.

The article specifically discusses this.

fche14• 9 years ago

Is this the part you're referring to:

"Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."

Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.

pmarreck3• 9 years ago

You proved you didn't read the article. Nice work.

sattoshi• 9 years ago

European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male.

I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue?

I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial conflicts.

Then there is this:

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 may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. 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 seems like a very sane system. Why is this not something we do? Do we not care about local interests at all as long as immigration isn't "too high"?

As an immigrant, I think this would be fair.

ForHackernews5• 9 years ago

Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue?

Young males commit most crimes all over the world. If you have an alternative explanation, I'd like to see strong statistical evidence to back it up.

orbifold2• 9 years ago

Even if you restrict yourself to young males then immigrants have a disproportionate share in crime at least in Germany, actually immigrants in Germany commited ~40% of all crimes in 2015, with a rapid increase in the last few years. It is also pretty obvious on the street level: drugs for example are primarily sold by immigrant gangs, for example africans with turkish bosses.

0x4f3759df• 9 years ago

Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.

andys627• 9 years ago

No. What do you base this on?

smb06• 9 years ago

+1. I, as an immigrant, contribute to social security even though i am not a citizen and have no plans to become one and therefore will not be eligible to social security benefits even though i contribute to it.

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers.

As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.

HillaryBriss• 9 years ago

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?

it just doesn't work that way. there's this thing called equality before the law, or something.

this sort of thing has been tried and US state and local governments are generally not allowed, by federal law, to deny the most expensive benefits and services to immigrants. it's, like, the US constitution and stuff.

note that educational services (i.e. schools) are a very large part of state budgets. like, sometimes the largest single component of a state budget. so the big savings would have to come from that sort of service denial, which again, is not constitutional.

fche14• 9 years ago

Benefits are already not disbursed equally across populations. (If they were, they'd be pointless.)

MistahKoala2• 9 years ago

it just doesn't work that way. there's this thing called equality before the law, or something.

It's like, there are countries other than the United States where this concept of exceptional treatment could apply or be de debated.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/International-tax-for-ind...

abhi32• 9 years ago

Sounds good, doesn't work.

A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more protectionism than existed before (Brexit).

Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies (Puerto Rico).

pmarreck3• 9 years ago

Article conclusions are based on evidence and reason.

Your comment is based on speculation and belief.

You are awarded no points

21• 9 years ago

Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that ... 42m would move to Britain.

That's about 5 London's. Where would these people live? Will cities magically appear from the ground?

UK favellas?

ben_w5• 9 years ago

I imagine the migrants would get paid by other migrants to build the hypothetical cities. That is the way literally every US city happened after all — well, migrants or their descendants.

fche14• 9 years ago

There's a bit of a chicken & egg problem there - if the immigrants come in a giant burst, they won't have any money to pay for new cities with.

programmarchy2• 9 years ago

Then why aren't the migrants doing that in the places they live now?

ben_w5• 9 years ago

The world will be richer, I personally will be poorer. I'm OK with that if it was evenly distributed, but I doubt my fellow rich caucasian men will be.

fche14• 9 years ago

Even distribution is not appropriate when work value is so terribly unequal.

sergiotapia• 9 years ago

One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

In this utopian paradise the author describes is he willfully ignoring the fact that different cultures exist? Not all cultures are equal, no matter what the current narrative tells you. This is a terrible, empty article.

If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.

Alright now this empty article turned insidious.

smrtinsert• 9 years ago

The article doesn't purport to understand or comprehend cultural differences, it's simply exploring the economic case. It's not call The Culturalist.

For an empty article, you've had a very strong reaction to it.

artursapek2• 9 years ago

but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.

He had a strong reaction because he's tired of these kinds of lies being perpetuated by our media. Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population.

tastythrowaway2• 9 years ago

Did I miss the part where they discuss the economics of having a larger worker pool? like how that would affect existing workers? that seems like an enormous question to not address fully.

fche14• 9 years ago

Plus there is a delicious delirium of every migrant population being equally capable of or inclined to productive work.

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

Im not sure what you mean with this comment, can you clarify?

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

It would not affect everyone equally, and wages in many areas would definitely go down. For example, if the US recognized medical degrees from other countries, the influx of doctors would be so large that the income for a physician would drop tremendously. So the physicians that are already employed should (if they represent their own interest) be very against such a policy. But the aggregate would end up being that the total salaries earned by doctors in the us would go up.

i.e. if you had 5 doctors at 500k, and you opened up, maybe you would have 10 doctors at 300k. This is a natural economic progression. Same with software engineers: open borders would definitely have a stark impact on median income, but there would be more startups and more work and more people employed in the sector.

PeterisP2• 9 years ago

Looking at the concerns of US population, I'd bet that they'd be quite happy with the notion that increased supply could cause a significant decrease in doctor salaries and thus medical costs.

Protection benefits the industry, lack of protectionism benefits everyone else; and patients have much more votes than doctors.

maxerickson• 9 years ago

The US does recognize medical degrees from other countries and leans on foreign doctors heavily.

We require them to go through a US residency.

Something like 1/4 of doctors in the US are foreign born.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/health/12chen.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-value...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-d...

hugh4life• 9 years ago

All that money measures is the ability to entice someone else. It does not measure wellbeing.

When it comes to migration, no one ever talks about the consequences of moving from a high context to a low context culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-context_cultures

Aladair Macintyre: "Consider what it is to share a culture. It is to share schemata which are at one and the same time constitutive of and normative for intelligible action by myself and are also means for my interpretations of the actions of others" https://toutcequimonte.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/macintyre...

Low context cultures are more atomized and legalistic. Free migration is one of major the things that justifies the national security state powers... which ironically these days in the west there is no sense of a nation outside of the state. There is a weakness in that notion because the internet has weakened the state's ability to integrate minorities because those people can live mentally in their homelands.

Aristotle on immigration: "Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution;"

Aquinas on immigration: "Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people."

kawera• 9 years ago

What if the flow happened from richer to poorer countries?

Developing and undeveloped countries are notoriously protectionists, specially of their visa/labor markets. What would happen if they opened their borders to all, presumably including qualified/entrepreneurial people?

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

I dont know how protectionist poorer countries are in general, but in south america there arent strong restrictions, because it is considered that people from developed countries are a lot more productive, precisely the effeect you are looking for. Sometimes there are rules meant to mimic the other ones as a deterrent (you dont let mine, i dont let yours kind of thing. Brazil and Argentina do this)

Mizza• 9 years ago

The neoliberal $78 trillion is the same as the nationalist £350m-a-week. Don't ever be fooled by these extrapolated figures.

MistahKoala2• 9 years ago

'nationalist'...

abhi32• 9 years ago

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?

What do you do when after a couple of years those very same immigrants starting protesting and rioting for civil rights like equal access to welfare benefits, equal taxes, right to vote and attribute racism as a motive for denying it to them rather than the original policy goal of making them pay their way and not overwhelm the locals in elections?

jarpschop• 9 years ago

When I see a post like this I just remember this plot. No matter how much wealth is produced if it is shared unequally. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyTbD6...

0xbear4• 9 years ago

Open borders == immediate destruction of the low-skilled and unskilled labor market due to oversupply of labor.

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

This is the exact same argument to have collective bargaining rights and unions.

I don't think the tech-crowd is a fan of unionization in general.

0xbear4• 9 years ago

Tech crowd is doing pretty well as it is. Low skilled and unskilled workers are already kind of f#$ed, with more to come due to globalization, and (later) automation.

drumttocs8• 9 years ago

Is this article assuming an infinite supply of jobs in any given location?

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.

Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions.

I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be to categorize and justify creating rules to prevent other people from moving around.

Zahlmeister8• 9 years ago

Hello from Germany.

We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed.

We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 2016, about 3% of taxes earned total, to support these people. We've managed to "oppress" the flow of refugees with unpopular measures. If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

For someone escaping a war torn country, finding a wall he cant surpass to escape death and destructive would surely be oppressive. He wants to do something that provokes no harm, and a state is telling him he can't. If you don't like that they represent a cost to the german state, you can take it up to the idea of welfare, and if you removed completely for the people that entered the country, they would still go to germany, because where they come from the situation is much worse.

The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.

If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?

This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them.

With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)

nostromo1235• 9 years ago

Furthermore, in Germany, after a couple of years even an illegal migrant who should have been deported gets "tolerated status" and de facto will remain in the country.

pixl973• 9 years ago

Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.

That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity.

If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states.

Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.

I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.

Free movement will have dramatic effects. Some may be positive, but you seem to steadfastly think it will not be manipulated in horrible, horrible ways by the nation states that already exist.

panic2• 9 years ago

If 20 million far right fundamentalist christians showed up at the Netherlands tomorrow, nobody would be able to throw them out, "closed borders" or not.

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states.

That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and immigration are pretty different.

Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.

When a foreigner enters the us, he is under the same federal jurisdiction, constitution and supreme court system. There is no conflict of law. There is conflict of interest, only if you portray the issue as an us vs them.

I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.

The netherlands doesn't want anything, because it's not a person. San francisco is a city, it doesn't have a will or a life. Individuals want things and do what they can to do it. If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it. Funny you mention SF that has a movement to kick out software developers and startups, because it's "destroying the culture of the city".

If 1 million saudi conservatives move to san francisco, they would pay so much money to achieve such a ridiculous demographic goal that the residents will have plenty of money to move and change another city to their own liking. That is, unless they are forbidden to do it by another government official.

nostromo1235• 9 years ago

Yeah, stopping people who openly say "Jews have to be eliminated!" from coming to Germany is definitely oppression... Why don't we also get rid of prisons and allow any criminal to live freely? After all, restricting someone's movement is oppression.

ilugaslifk• 9 years ago

I'm already on extremely high alert for an apparently rapidly-growing political movement whose primary demand is that I be forcibly expelled from my home and society for the crime of sharing an ethnic heritage with people who, it is charged, were genetically compelled to impose even a fraction of this onto an unwilling host society.

Let's not.

panic2• 9 years ago

It's worth remembering that before the 20th century, the US had more or less completely open borders. And we turned out OK, didn't we?

pixl973• 9 years ago

And we turned out OK, didn't we?

I'm going to have to ask if this was a monumental failure of thinking on your part?

First there are some theories that huge numbers of native Americans died from disease leaving the US a very large empty land mass.

Second, the native Americans that were left got a real bad deal from European immigration.

Third, the US depended heavily on slave labor in the south, something that has left a terrible 170 legacy of racism on our country (so much so our crime demographics look nothing like western Europe's.

Lastly, because the US was a large and empty land mass for one reason or another, it look a long time to 'fill it up'.

Attempting to make any future assumptions based on past assumptions that are very different from now is not going to work out well at all.

SomewhatLikely• 9 years ago

The article says the world would be twice as rich. World GDP/capita is $16k. Doubling this would make it $32k/person. U.S. GDP / capita is currently $57k. Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries, then Americans would need to get used to living twice as poor as today.

conanbatt23• 9 years ago

Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries

That assumption is both onerous and preposterous

rwz• 9 years ago

As a legal immigrant myself I'm baffled at how little typical American knows about immigration. Everybody's usually very surprised when you tell them that even the in the best case scenario a highly-educated specialist with a degree, 5+ years or experience, and a job offer needs to eat a ton a shit, pay a lot of money, go through nine circles of bureaucratic hell, and wait a few years to fully immigrate and gain a permanent residency status. How many people get visa rejections with no explanation. How many people can't enter their country even temporary as a tourist.

In a world where low skilled workers get replaced by automation more and more, where even local citizens are having troubles finding or keeping a job, where the most common source of income for non-educated people is freaking driving professionally, sure, let's let in 160m+ folks escaping poverty and running from countries with no education, oppressive regimes and weird religions. Surely it'll turn out just fine. Surely they all will find decent jobs real quick, learn the language, integrate and bring huge benefits. Uh-huh.

If borders were open

Related Stories