3 ms·

Conversely, this also illustrates a fallacy in many arguments against immigration. Suppose Mexicans/Indians/whoever are all (or predominantly) worse than Americ

Conversely, this also illustrates a fallacy in many arguments against immigration. Suppose Mexicans/Indians/whoever are all (or predominantly) worse than Americans on whatever scale you choose to measure them. When you allow immigration you'll cause averages to go down in both countries by the converse of the mechanism you describe above. Various people (Vinod Khosla, Steve Sailer) fallaciously use this statistical truism as an argument against immigration by people without a PhD. The only way I can think of to steelman arguments like this are by combining Steve Sailer style nationalism with fairly extreme "redistribute all the things" liberalism.

sogen 12y ago
'Vinod' doesn't sound too american btw And aren't there studies that confirm inmigrants are more likely to contribute to the wealth of a country?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Khosla is a PIO, but as I recall from his debate with Bryan Caplan (they were both supposed to be on the same side!) he only favors immigration of highly skilled individuals. I'm having trouble finding it, but he had very little substance behind his arguments - just a cheap slogan ("import prosperity, not poverty" or something like that). Overall it was very disappointing. There are good arguments to be made both for and against immigration - the particular one I describe here just isn't one of them.
spindritf 12y ago
I don't get the fallacy. If you believe that there are positive externalities from living in a country with people who are better on whatever scale you choose to measure them, then migration benefits a (relatively) small number of migrants and hurts everyone else, both in their country of origin and destination. Whether this should prevail over freedom of individuals is another matter.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Externalities is a separate argument, and requires doing more than simply looking at average qualities. If you want to make that argument you need to start by drawing the line between people who are positive and people who are negative. This is a more compelling argument, but it's not the one I described.

sogen 12y ago

'Vinod' doesn't sound too american btw And aren't there studies that confirm inmigrants are more likely to contribute to the wealth of a country?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Khosla is a PIO, but as I recall from his debate with Bryan Caplan (they were both supposed to be on the same side!) he only favors immigration of highly skilled individuals. I'm having trouble finding it, but he had very little substance behind his arguments - just a cheap slogan ("import prosperity, not poverty" or something like that). Overall it was very disappointing. There are good arguments to be made both for and against immigration - the particular one I describe here just isn't one of them.

spindritf 12y ago

I don't get the fallacy. If you believe that there are positive externalities from living in a country with people who are better on whatever scale you choose to measure them, then migration benefits a (relatively) small number of migrants and hurts everyone else, both in their country of origin and destination. Whether this should prevail over freedom of individuals is another matter.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Externalities is a separate argument, and requires doing more than simply looking at average qualities. If you want to make that argument you need to start by drawing the line between people who are positive and people who are negative. This is a more compelling argument, but it's not the one I described.