5 ms·
There are good arguments for open borders in the equilibrium. But it's very hard to argue that they're good for the people who's jobs are lost. This is the clas
by darawk 6y ago
There are good arguments for open borders in the equilibrium. But it's very hard to argue that they're good for the people who's jobs are lost. This is the classic median/mean reasoning error. Open borders are good for the arithmetic mean person. They are not necessarily good for the median person.
For instance, the outsourcing of american manufacturing to China has seriously heart middle America. There is no real way around that. It has arguably been good on net for the world, but it has been quite bad for those specific communities. It's important that we fully recognize those tradeoffs, and not imply that unfettered immigration is a universal good.
It is almost certainly good for 'the economy'. But it can be quite bad for most of the individuals in that economy, and it's very important to disambiguate those things. On balance I think I come down in favor of more immigration, particularly high skilled, but I think it's important that we not pretend like people aren't seriously harmed by it, too.
- strictnein 6y ago> "Open borders are good for the arithmetic mean person. They are not necessarily good for the median person." Yeah, and it's strange that the people who make these arguments are in positions unassailable to those taking advantage of "open borders".
- cousin_it 6y ago> There are good arguments for open borders in the equilibrium. But it's very hard to argue that they're good for the people who's jobs are lost. That seems like a too general argument, as it also applies to technology.
- darawk 6y agoIt does apply to technology. My point isn't "some people get hurt, therefore open borders are bad". Some people are hurt by technology, but the net benefits are so great that it's generally worthwhile. I think the tradeoff is a little closer to even for open borders.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cousin_it 6y agoThinking about it some more, it seems there are three main effects: 1) High skill effect. If you invite someone who has higher productivity than average for your country, that has basically the same effect as technology. This is a strong argument for skilled immigration. 2) Low wage effect. If you invite someone who's willing to work for a lower wage (being from a poor country), you are better off, but only until they learn to ask the same wage as natives. This is why I think Caplan's main argument for unskilled immigration is weak. 3) Poor proximity effect. Most natives don't want to live among poor people, so natives become worse off when you invite poor immigrants. This is a strong argument against unskilled immigration.
- nraynaud 6y agoI am not so sure, without cheap manufacturing the midwest could never afford their trucks, their tractors, their ATVs and their AC units. Look at the difference between middle America and middle Portugal.
- darawk 6y agoI don't think that's true. The midwest was buying trucks long before manufacturing left for China.