4 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. That seems li
by 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.