4 ms·

It's an attempt at poetic exaggeration - the point is the comparison between India and the US. India has a Gini of 33, the US has 45. Yet simply compare poverty

It's an attempt at poetic exaggeration - the point is the comparison between India and the US. India has a Gini of 33, the US has 45. Yet simply compare poverty in the US to upper middle class status in India, and you quickly realize that inequality isn't the most salient factor at play. I'm not sure why you believe we need some sort of "global standards" for open borders to work. I'm undecided on the issue, but I can't see how "global standards" play a role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t...

anigbrowl 12y ago
OK, but France (Piketty's home country) has a Gini index of 32.7 and I find it easy to conceive of significant wealth disparities between individual French people notwithstanding their relative economic homogeneity. India was a poor example to pick, not just because of the existence of Indian billionaires, but because of the genetic institutionalization of inequality there in the form of caste, such that (until very recently) if you were born a Brahmin you had massively greater economic prospects than if you were born a Dalit. Anyway, as far as open borders go, the primary argument against them is that everyone will flood into those countries which have the most favorable conditions for workers, not just in terms of pay but in terms of safety, contractual rights and so forth. You would certainly want some sort of receiprocal arrangement, such that if people from China want to immigrate to the US, US people should be equally free to live, work and invest in China. You don't need to harmonize everything of course, but it's an incredibly difficult sell politically if you don't have reciprocity, on top of being an incredibly difficult sell because of mercantilist and xenophobic tendencies in the receiving economies. I'm heartily in favor of open borders and free trade in general, but most people hate the idea - even Tea Party types who profess a general disbelief in governmental competence.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  As I said, my use of the term "equal" was poetic exaggeration. India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. The caste system is still here, though nowadays it's more a social problem than an economic one. Your discussion of harmonization sounds like countries need to harmonize to avoid competing with each other. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. This is obtuse even by your standards, Chris. You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered, but you're not guaranteed a flush toilet there either. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers? Try being a politician explaining that to economically dislocated domestic voters. Hell, look how bent out of shape people here get about immigration and the US only ranks 180th out of the world in population density. I don't think it's it's an economic necessity, but it's a political reality, unfortunately.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered... I'm arguing only that inequality is orthogonal to what we really care about: standard of living. But discussing standard of living is a political loser - poor Americans have a very high standard of living, and the historical story is one of more or less consistent improvements. (If you disagree, try this thought experiment: name a good or service people at the bottom lack.) As for political reality you are correct. The fact that a few million rich Americans are jealous of their richer neighbors will always seem more important to politicians than hundreds of millions of truly poor people who can't vote for them.

anigbrowl 12y ago

OK, but France (Piketty's home country) has a Gini index of 32.7 and I find it easy to conceive of significant wealth disparities between individual French people notwithstanding their relative economic homogeneity. India was a poor example to pick, not just because of the existence of Indian billionaires, but because of the genetic institutionalization of inequality there in the form of caste, such that (until very recently) if you were born a Brahmin you had massively greater economic prospects than if you were born a Dalit. Anyway, as far as open borders go, the primary argument against them is that everyone will flood into those countries which have the most favorable conditions for workers, not just in terms of pay but in terms of safety, contractual rights and so forth. You would certainly want some sort of receiprocal arrangement, such that if people from China want to immigrate to the US, US people should be equally free to live, work and invest in China. You don't need to harmonize everything of course, but it's an incredibly difficult sell politically if you don't have reciprocity, on top of being an incredibly difficult sell because of mercantilist and xenophobic tendencies in the receiving economies. I'm heartily in favor of open borders and free trade in general, but most people hate the idea - even Tea Party types who profess a general disbelief in governmental competence.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
As I said, my use of the term "equal" was poetic exaggeration. India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. The caste system is still here, though nowadays it's more a social problem than an economic one. Your discussion of harmonization sounds like countries need to harmonize to avoid competing with each other. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. This is obtuse even by your standards, Chris. You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered, but you're not guaranteed a flush toilet there either. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers? Try being a politician explaining that to economically dislocated domestic voters. Hell, look how bent out of shape people here get about immigration and the US only ranks 180th out of the world in population density. I don't think it's it's an economic necessity, but it's a political reality, unfortunately.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered... I'm arguing only that inequality is orthogonal to what we really care about: standard of living. But discussing standard of living is a political loser - poor Americans have a very high standard of living, and the historical story is one of more or less consistent improvements. (If you disagree, try this thought experiment: name a good or service people at the bottom lack.) As for political reality you are correct. The fact that a few million rich Americans are jealous of their richer neighbors will always seem more important to politicians than hundreds of millions of truly poor people who can't vote for them.