3 ms·

I think you make excellent points. I think where we'd probably disagree is in how quickly (or easily) we'd reach some sort of equillibrium state. You are absol

I think you make excellent points. I think where we'd probably disagree is in how quickly (or easily) we'd reach some sort of equillibrium state. You are absolutely right that countries which enjoy greater public benefits would likely enjoy a greater influx of people. But I disagree that that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm a firm believer that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And if residents of Iceland make it so appealing to just live there without contributing to society, then I don't see how it is a (globally-speaking) bad thing to have migration make it so that enough people decide to move there to make it less feasible. Let's not forget: The people supposedly moving into those economies would likely be fleeing oppressive regimes with very little economic opportunities. And, with free movement, it would become much harder to give away freebies, AS it would become much harder to become an oppressive government. Stories like Venezuela would be more hard to come by if people could simply leave the country more easily. Just take familiar HN-turf: Software development. What do you think would happen if all Indian developers (many of whom are actually really, really talented), could just as easily apply for jobs in the US? Undoubtedly worse for US-based developers, right? And maybe there is some sense that such a massive disrpution should be avoided, at least "suddenly" as you say. But now you multiply this across every industry, with all of their individual justifications, and what you end up with is with an ossified global society. We end up trying each to protect our pie (from crop subsidies on out), all perfectly justifiable. But, as a global community, we make it worse for all of us. Just this week Elon tried to inspire us about the idea of an interplanetary species. It just seems inconsistent to me for us to dream about being a people who can travel freely to the stars, but that we need to ask permissions of random strangers to visit family members, to employ our talent productively far from where we were born, etc. I think you raise really valid points. But in my eyes, those are issues to be dealt with in the pursuit of this ideal, not justifications on why it should not be pursued/is not feasible.

CalRobert 10y ago
Thanks for raising some really valid counterpoints to my argument, while framing this as a contest of ideas and not people. I really appreciate it. I imagine others on HN do too. Regarding "I don't see how it is a (globally-speaking) bad thing to have migration make it so that enough people decide to move there to make it less feasible." - to be honest I tend to agree in principle, but I worry that the practical effect would be far more negative. Making the decision to move less feasible seems to mean making the destination country less desirable, which sucks and is a bummer for those who live there. Then again, there's nothing fair about me being paid ten times as much as someone in India to work with databases. I just happen to like the stuff I can buy by making 10x as much cash. I want to live in a liberal democracy with a high standard of living and low carbon emissions (so apartments close to amenities with lots of bike lanes and very few automobiles) with a steady or slowly decreasing population, because there are too many people in the world for it to support. If such a place existed (Denmark comes to mind, or perhaps Japan), it would probably be a desirable target for migrants from all over the world, which would strain the systems that could make such a place possible. How do you build schools to house families with 4+ children when your budget was built on the idea that you would need to build no more, or slowly downsize them with time? How do you allocate land?
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  >I want to live in a liberal democracy with a high standard of living and low carbon emissions (so apartments close to amenities with lots of bike lanes and very few automobiles) with a steady or slowly decreasing population, because there are too many people in the world for it to support. If such a place existed (Denmark comes to mind, or perhaps Japan), it would probably be a desirable target for migrants from all over the world, which would strain the systems that could make such a place possible. Yes, but I think that's what happens at t=0. And I think that your preferences are probably widely shared by a large contingent of the world population. As it stands, those who enjoy it are either those who had the good fortune to be born in those societies, or those who manage to migrate there through some way or another. Yes, perhaps immigration initially makes it less feasible for those societies to continue operating like that, but it makes it MUCH more difficult to governments who don't support those policies from existing. That's the factor that I put a lot of faith in. The important factor in my eyes is not just the influx of immigrants, but the exodus which will force other countries and governments too look much more like the Danish one (in your example) if they are to survive. Google and Facebook fight over employees, and the ultimate winners are engineers in place to be hired by those companies. Elsewhere in our economy and the world, we seem to understand that in competitive environments, "customers" win. Within the US we understand that too! Just take all the states who try to entice businesses through tax policy, old people who move to warmer climates, etc. You don't hear nearly as much complaining about state and local politics (which accounts for a much larger swath of gov't spending than national politics) here in the U.S. And I think some of the issues you mention ARE present. There are municipalities and states that offer friendlier policies in one shape or another, and you do see athletes moving to Florida because of the lack of income tax, for instance. But I think those issues are far, far outweighed by what the country gains by having these "open borders" between the states. I suspect we don't have more issues because if you don't like something about where you live, you move. This is one of the most distinct things about the U.S. with my experience overseas (I'm from Brazil originally). For better or worse, accessing a modern economy there means living in one of two cities. Here? I can make a rich matrix of climate, culture, job environment, etc., and find a few candidate cities in which to live in. That's amazing. And I think that's how you get some pretty unique experiences -- Silicon Valley to NYC -- which are all world-class. With respect to your housing point, I think you are right. But again, I see greater migration as a way to also solve those problems. The influx makes land and housing more valuable in Denmark, which in turns makes more development there more valuable and more feasible. And, conversely, makes places people are leaving less valuable and land there cheaper. I see it as a way to equate opportunity over the world. And, like in the U.S., no doubt that the steady state will yield places that are very different from one another in terms of culture, or climate, or how it is run by their local government. But the threat of exit will be a great check on their ability to diverge from the will of and preferences of the people.

CalRobert 10y ago

Thanks for raising some really valid counterpoints to my argument, while framing this as a contest of ideas and not people. I really appreciate it. I imagine others on HN do too. Regarding "I don't see how it is a (globally-speaking) bad thing to have migration make it so that enough people decide to move there to make it less feasible." - to be honest I tend to agree in principle, but I worry that the practical effect would be far more negative. Making the decision to move less feasible seems to mean making the destination country less desirable, which sucks and is a bummer for those who live there. Then again, there's nothing fair about me being paid ten times as much as someone in India to work with databases. I just happen to like the stuff I can buy by making 10x as much cash. I want to live in a liberal democracy with a high standard of living and low carbon emissions (so apartments close to amenities with lots of bike lanes and very few automobiles) with a steady or slowly decreasing population, because there are too many people in the world for it to support. If such a place existed (Denmark comes to mind, or perhaps Japan), it would probably be a desirable target for migrants from all over the world, which would strain the systems that could make such a place possible. How do you build schools to house families with 4+ children when your budget was built on the idea that you would need to build no more, or slowly downsize them with time? How do you allocate land?

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
>I want to live in a liberal democracy with a high standard of living and low carbon emissions (so apartments close to amenities with lots of bike lanes and very few automobiles) with a steady or slowly decreasing population, because there are too many people in the world for it to support. If such a place existed (Denmark comes to mind, or perhaps Japan), it would probably be a desirable target for migrants from all over the world, which would strain the systems that could make such a place possible. Yes, but I think that's what happens at t=0. And I think that your preferences are probably widely shared by a large contingent of the world population. As it stands, those who enjoy it are either those who had the good fortune to be born in those societies, or those who manage to migrate there through some way or another. Yes, perhaps immigration initially makes it less feasible for those societies to continue operating like that, but it makes it MUCH more difficult to governments who don't support those policies from existing. That's the factor that I put a lot of faith in. The important factor in my eyes is not just the influx of immigrants, but the exodus which will force other countries and governments too look much more like the Danish one (in your example) if they are to survive. Google and Facebook fight over employees, and the ultimate winners are engineers in place to be hired by those companies. Elsewhere in our economy and the world, we seem to understand that in competitive environments, "customers" win. Within the US we understand that too! Just take all the states who try to entice businesses through tax policy, old people who move to warmer climates, etc. You don't hear nearly as much complaining about state and local politics (which accounts for a much larger swath of gov't spending than national politics) here in the U.S. And I think some of the issues you mention ARE present. There are municipalities and states that offer friendlier policies in one shape or another, and you do see athletes moving to Florida because of the lack of income tax, for instance. But I think those issues are far, far outweighed by what the country gains by having these "open borders" between the states. I suspect we don't have more issues because if you don't like something about where you live, you move. This is one of the most distinct things about the U.S. with my experience overseas (I'm from Brazil originally). For better or worse, accessing a modern economy there means living in one of two cities. Here? I can make a rich matrix of climate, culture, job environment, etc., and find a few candidate cities in which to live in. That's amazing. And I think that's how you get some pretty unique experiences -- Silicon Valley to NYC -- which are all world-class. With respect to your housing point, I think you are right. But again, I see greater migration as a way to also solve those problems. The influx makes land and housing more valuable in Denmark, which in turns makes more development there more valuable and more feasible. And, conversely, makes places people are leaving less valuable and land there cheaper. I see it as a way to equate opportunity over the world. And, like in the U.S., no doubt that the steady state will yield places that are very different from one another in terms of culture, or climate, or how it is run by their local government. But the threat of exit will be a great check on their ability to diverge from the will of and preferences of the people.