5 ms·

> we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems Generalization: most of those problems are political rather than

> we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems Generalization: most of those problems are political rather than technical, and unlike with technical problems, if you make a wrong guess about how to solve a political problem, the costs might be unboundedly catastrophic (e.g. world war). I personally believe that the best response to global warming is open borders, because it would mean that all the people who: * are living in the global south could relocate somewhere colder and further inland, if they wanted; * are subsistence farming, but who would be great engineers, scientists, etc. given the right opportunities, would be more likely to get those opportunities. Most people think that open borders would be bad, and I don't think I will be able to persuade them otherwise in my lifetime. In general, alternatives to persuasion in politics amount to seizing power and/or changing the rules of the game. Even if I thought I could do that, which I don't, I wouldn't, because all too often in history, the cure is worse than the disease. That's why I think these problems are hard -- and why I'm scared of people who propose grand solutions to them.

SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
If you haven't seen it, you might like Open Borders by Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith[1]. Comic-book form advocating for open borders, with pretty good reasoning. [1] https://smile.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960 https://smile.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigra...
- setgree 6y ago
  Ha, I originally provided a cite to this but took it out to make my comment shorter :) Glad you liked it!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bserge 6y ago
My issue with open borders is that everyone seems to come to the most populated places. It seems kind of insane how everyone crams into the same old cities. Companies do it because the workers are there, workers do it because the companies are there, and every city just becomes a crowded, unaffordable hellscape. Is it not possible to build new towns and expand them anymore? There's plenty of land as far as I can tell...
- setgree 6y ago
  What we've experienced is not open borders, at least in America it's mostly a mix of unskilled workers coming in over the Southern border and high-skilled workers coming in via visas. Naturally those recruited specifically to join companies are going to cluster where those companies are. I also think that immigrants from a generation or two back tend to be spread out much farther. There's a large Indian population in the Detroit area, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_Americans_in_Metro_Detroit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_Americans_in... Bottom line: Immigrants, like the rest of Americans, go where the jobs are, and if that gets more spread out -- as might happen as a long-term response to COVID -- then so will the distribution of new arrivals. Can't really speak to the experience elsewhere.
- ucosty 6y ago
  You can build new towns, but they tend to have a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to jobs. No employers will set up shop in a new town because there are no employees, people moving in get jobs in the nearest city because there are none suitable in town. These places are often called bedroom or commuter towns.
- harimau777 6y ago
  I think that some of the issue is that cities have more opportunities even outside of employment. Arts, dining, sporting events, museums, world class instructors in various hobbies, cultural events, etc.
- gowld 6y ago
  If those cities are so bad, why does almost everyone want to live there? If you don't like the cities, why not take advantage of open borders leave? Open borders seems to be the solution to your problem, not the cause.
- asdff 6y ago
  There is simply an advantage to being close to a network node with multiple connections that outweigh the costs. Whether you define that node in people in your field, different fields, different cultures, different ideas, availability of direct flights, trains, highways, whatever connection it may be. There is an advantage to maximizing available connections that can't be ignored. And ultimately, it may even work out in your favor to live in a high COL place. The rents are higher, but usually your pay is relative so proportionally cost of living is about the same. That means in a high cost of living state, x% of your income is more money to invest and grow, and over a career that can lead to a significant difference in wealth.
tomjen3 6y ago
I am a fan of open borders, but you can't have any kind of public assistance and open borders.
- setgree 6y ago
  Bryan Caplan addresses this as one of his "keyhole solutions" to various perceived negative externalities: [0] > For instance, if the problem lies with migrant welfare use, the most keyhole solution-like approach is to change the rules, or enforcement of rules, surrounding migrant welfare use. Another option is open borders with a migration tax [1]. At the end of the day, I think that once someone adopts the mindset that, prima facie, it's morally wrong to deny people the right to move where they wish,[2] it becomes a lot easier to shift one's thinking away from "identify that there are hard problems and give up" to solving those problems. [0] https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035616 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035616 [2] http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    this raises more questions than it answers for me. the migration tax in particular doesn't make a lot of sense to me. immigrants are either going to a) consume more services than they pay for in "normal" taxes, or b) make enough money that their taxes more than offset the services consumed. in case b), the people probably already have some valuable skills; you don't want to discourage these people from entering with a special tax. they would already be a net benefit to the balance sheet upon entry. in case a), they probably couldn't afford to pay a meaningful migration tax in the first place. do you just turn them away if they can't pay? restrictions on use of welfare for immigrants seems "fair" in a sense. at least, it doesn't leave them worse off than they were in the first place. I have to suspect this is a non-starter politically though. outside of a certain group of libertarians, most people who think it's morally wrong to prohibit free movement probably also consider it morally wrong to let people starve in the streets once they get there.
    - 6y ago
nine_k 6y ago
The more obligations a state takes to its population (not limited to citizens), the harder it is to enact an open-borders policy while keeping these obligations. The US used to accept basically anyone, but it did not have any Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, etc. In EU states, the problem is even more severe, as they provide more benefits, to those who pay taxes an to those who don't alike. So, high life standards, advanced social protections, open borders: pick any two.
- justin66 6y ago
  > The more obligations a state takes to its population (not limited to citizens), the harder it is to enact an open-borders policy while keeping these obligations. The opposite is true. Immigrants generally work very hard and accept minimal wages. (This is one reason why many citizens would prefer not to compete with them in the labor market.) Their labor can be highly effective in supporting an economy with strong, potentially expensive, social programs. In the US, our problem is that we've found that we can make them work even harder for even lower wages, and provide them even less social support, by making them "illegal."
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    The opposite is true. Social programs are funded by tax dollars, not cheap labor that may or may not be reported for taxes at all. If you want to make an argument that immigrants are good for these programs you need to limit immigration to higher economic output (and thus tax revenue) individuals like many other countries do.
    - justin66 6y ago
      > Social programs are funded by tax dollars, not cheap labor that may or may not be reported for taxes at all. The economy provides tax dollars. If immigrants are working hard for low wages, they're supporting the economy and economic growth. You're thinking very unclearly if you gauge the economic impact of a worker, or a class of workers, solely on how much income tax they pay.

SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago

If you haven't seen it, you might like Open Borders by Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith[1]. Comic-book form advocating for open borders, with pretty good reasoning. [1] https://smile.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960 https://smile.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigra...

setgree 6y ago
Ha, I originally provided a cite to this but took it out to make my comment shorter :) Glad you liked it!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bserge 6y ago

My issue with open borders is that everyone seems to come to the most populated places. It seems kind of insane how everyone crams into the same old cities. Companies do it because the workers are there, workers do it because the companies are there, and every city just becomes a crowded, unaffordable hellscape. Is it not possible to build new towns and expand them anymore? There's plenty of land as far as I can tell...

setgree 6y ago
What we've experienced is not open borders, at least in America it's mostly a mix of unskilled workers coming in over the Southern border and high-skilled workers coming in via visas. Naturally those recruited specifically to join companies are going to cluster where those companies are. I also think that immigrants from a generation or two back tend to be spread out much farther. There's a large Indian population in the Detroit area, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_Americans_in_Metro_Detroit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_Americans_in... Bottom line: Immigrants, like the rest of Americans, go where the jobs are, and if that gets more spread out -- as might happen as a long-term response to COVID -- then so will the distribution of new arrivals. Can't really speak to the experience elsewhere.
ucosty 6y ago
You can build new towns, but they tend to have a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to jobs. No employers will set up shop in a new town because there are no employees, people moving in get jobs in the nearest city because there are none suitable in town. These places are often called bedroom or commuter towns.
harimau777 6y ago
I think that some of the issue is that cities have more opportunities even outside of employment. Arts, dining, sporting events, museums, world class instructors in various hobbies, cultural events, etc.
gowld 6y ago
If those cities are so bad, why does almost everyone want to live there? If you don't like the cities, why not take advantage of open borders leave? Open borders seems to be the solution to your problem, not the cause.
asdff 6y ago
There is simply an advantage to being close to a network node with multiple connections that outweigh the costs. Whether you define that node in people in your field, different fields, different cultures, different ideas, availability of direct flights, trains, highways, whatever connection it may be. There is an advantage to maximizing available connections that can't be ignored. And ultimately, it may even work out in your favor to live in a high COL place. The rents are higher, but usually your pay is relative so proportionally cost of living is about the same. That means in a high cost of living state, x% of your income is more money to invest and grow, and over a career that can lead to a significant difference in wealth.

tomjen3 6y ago

I am a fan of open borders, but you can't have any kind of public assistance and open borders.

setgree 6y ago
Bryan Caplan addresses this as one of his "keyhole solutions" to various perceived negative externalities: [0] > For instance, if the problem lies with migrant welfare use, the most keyhole solution-like approach is to change the rules, or enforcement of rules, surrounding migrant welfare use. Another option is open borders with a migration tax [1]. At the end of the day, I think that once someone adopts the mindset that, prima facie, it's morally wrong to deny people the right to move where they wish,[2] it becomes a lot easier to shift one's thinking away from "identify that there are hard problems and give up" to solving those problems. [0] https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035616 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035616 [2] http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm
- leetcrew 6y ago
  this raises more questions than it answers for me. the migration tax in particular doesn't make a lot of sense to me. immigrants are either going to a) consume more services than they pay for in "normal" taxes, or b) make enough money that their taxes more than offset the services consumed. in case b), the people probably already have some valuable skills; you don't want to discourage these people from entering with a special tax. they would already be a net benefit to the balance sheet upon entry. in case a), they probably couldn't afford to pay a meaningful migration tax in the first place. do you just turn them away if they can't pay? restrictions on use of welfare for immigrants seems "fair" in a sense. at least, it doesn't leave them worse off than they were in the first place. I have to suspect this is a non-starter politically though. outside of a certain group of libertarians, most people who think it's morally wrong to prohibit free movement probably also consider it morally wrong to let people starve in the streets once they get there.
  - 6y ago

nine_k 6y ago

The more obligations a state takes to its population (not limited to citizens), the harder it is to enact an open-borders policy while keeping these obligations. The US used to accept basically anyone, but it did not have any Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, etc. In EU states, the problem is even more severe, as they provide more benefits, to those who pay taxes an to those who don't alike. So, high life standards, advanced social protections, open borders: pick any two.

justin66 6y ago
> The more obligations a state takes to its population (not limited to citizens), the harder it is to enact an open-borders policy while keeping these obligations. The opposite is true. Immigrants generally work very hard and accept minimal wages. (This is one reason why many citizens would prefer not to compete with them in the labor market.) Their labor can be highly effective in supporting an economy with strong, potentially expensive, social programs. In the US, our problem is that we've found that we can make them work even harder for even lower wages, and provide them even less social support, by making them "illegal."
- mdorazio 6y ago
  The opposite is true. Social programs are funded by tax dollars, not cheap labor that may or may not be reported for taxes at all. If you want to make an argument that immigrants are good for these programs you need to limit immigration to higher economic output (and thus tax revenue) individuals like many other countries do.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > Social programs are funded by tax dollars, not cheap labor that may or may not be reported for taxes at all. The economy provides tax dollars. If immigrants are working hard for low wages, they're supporting the economy and economic growth. You're thinking very unclearly if you gauge the economic impact of a worker, or a class of workers, solely on how much income tax they pay.