6 ms·

More shilling for cheap labor. Articles like this are the left-wing equivalent of climate-change denial. "Unlimited immigration has literally no consequences bu

by jquery 12y ago

More shilling for cheap labor. Articles like this are the left-wing equivalent of climate-change denial. "Unlimited immigration has literally no consequences but rainbows and sunshine!"

mlinksva 12y ago
You're shilling for cheap labor in poor jurisdictions and for continuation of the international apartheid regime. Congratulations!
- jquery 12y ago
  At least you are honest about your extremism, unlike the author, who tries to couch the big business shilling for cheap labor as some sort of benefit for the natives.
  - mlinksva 12y ago
    I'll take the compliment. I recommend http://openborders.info/blog/welcome-to-open-borders/ http://openborders.info/blog/welcome-to-open-borders/ for more, though my personal extremism is focused on http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/category/apartheid/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/category/apartheid/
    - jquery 12y ago
      I respect your opinion, it's coming from a place of honesty and compassion. I think you are extraordinarily misguided and I personally believe eliminating borders would lead to the largest genocide the world has ever seen.
fennecfoxen 12y ago
Oh, man, you need to be careful about bringing up the specter of "climate-change denial" like it's going to buttress your point. If the consensus of scientists is something you actually respect, we should consider the attitudes of people whose job it is to study this sort of thing. I'll just leave this here for a user-friendly start and some good references on the consensus of economists: http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf Spoilers: while I don't see immigration specifically addressed here, "cheap labor" is very, very high on the agenda. Free trade and outsourcing score each score >85% support... and it seems unlikely that the free-trade attitude will evaporate just because it's free trade in labor that we're talking about. The sentiments you've expressed can neatly be construed as another kind of economic protectionism of the sort economists loathe...
- Bluestrike2 12y ago
  For the most part, economists don't really discriminate between the free trade of goods and the free trade of labor. They're so closely linked in any case that they're functionally the same in this context.
  - revelation 12y ago
    That's a funny idea in a world where you can't ask someone what they're making and mentioning union will get you fired.
a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
You would think the environmentalists on the left would would look at the population projection tables and exercise a little more common sense about immigration. Apparently they have no sway. We're well on the course to a peak population over 400 million, which is way beyond any sane carrying capacity for north america in terms of environmental foot print given american standards of living.
- porsupah 12y ago
  Given the population and size of the United Kingdom (64,100,000 in 2013, over 94,060 sq mi, for an average density of 661.9/sq mi), or California (38,802,500 in 2014, over 163,696 sq mi, av. density 246/sq mi), I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree that the US (320,206,000 people in 3,531,905.43 sq mi, av. 88.6/sq mi) has quite that modest a sensible capacity. Of course, not every square mile is equal - water is a vital component that's set to become a very pressing topic in interstate negotiations in the coming decades.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    The UK is way overpopulated. If there's ever a hiccup in international shipping they're all gonna starve, just like the krauts back in WWI.
Bluestrike2 12y ago
Informed arguments for increased immigration are the exact opposite of climate-change denial primarily because they're based on actual evidence. Falsely equating the two is the height of folly. Economists have spent enough time considering the issue to suggest that the anti-immigration concerns (they'll take our jobs) are largely incorrect. As for long-term implications, when you start to consider the impact of second-generation immigrants, the negative costs of the first-generation are balanced out. I'm thinking of a couple studies in particular, but I don't have time to track them down at the moment before I run out the door (though those keywords ought to help you find them). In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for "unlimited" immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants. Setting aside the question of where the lines would be drawn under any systematic reforms, there are a number of factors that affect whether a person chooses to immigrate (time, expense, tradeoffs of moving, etc.). The simple fact that the entire population of Mexico hasn't already absconded for the United States would suggest that the fears of an endless horde of immigrants are as unfounded as worry over the population of the Ukraine running for Germany because of European border laws.
- greeneggs 12y ago
  "In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for 'unlimited' immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants." You might find this article of interest [1], since it counters both these points. Here are a few quotes, first advocating for unlimited immigration, and second suggesting that there is a practically infinite supply of immigrants. 1. "The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital... For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world GDP. For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP." 2. "The Gallup World Poll finds that more than 40 percent of adults in the poorest quartile of countries “would like to move permanently to another country” if they had the opportunity, including 60 percent or more of in Guyana and Sierra Leone... The size of these constraints is apparent in the annual U.S. Diversity Visa Lottery, which allocates permanent emigration slots mainly to developing countries. In fiscal year 2010, this lottery had 13.6 million applications for 50,000 visas (U.S. Department of State, 2011)—272 applicants per slot." Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the paper: "We can check these calculations on the back of the metaphorical envelope. Divide the world into a “rich” region, where one billion people earn $30,000 per year, and a “poor” region, where six billion earn $5,000 per year. Suppose emigrants from the poor region have lower productivity, so each gains just 60 percent of the simple earnings gap upon emigrating—that is, $15,000 per year. This marginal gain shrinks as emigration proceeds, so suppose that the average gain is just $7,500 per year. If half the population of the poor region emigrates, migrants would gain $23 trillion—which is 38 percent of global GDP." [1] Clemens, Michael A. 2011. "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3): 83-106. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83

by jquery 12y ago

More shilling for cheap labor. Articles like this are the left-wing equivalent of climate-change denial. "Unlimited immigration has literally no consequences but rainbows and sunshine!"

mlinksva 12y ago

You're shilling for cheap labor in poor jurisdictions and for continuation of the international apartheid regime. Congratulations!

jquery 12y ago
At least you are honest about your extremism, unlike the author, who tries to couch the big business shilling for cheap labor as some sort of benefit for the natives.
- mlinksva 12y ago
  I'll take the compliment. I recommend http://openborders.info/blog/welcome-to-open-borders/ http://openborders.info/blog/welcome-to-open-borders/ for more, though my personal extremism is focused on http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/category/apartheid/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/category/apartheid/
  - jquery 12y ago
    I respect your opinion, it's coming from a place of honesty and compassion. I think you are extraordinarily misguided and I personally believe eliminating borders would lead to the largest genocide the world has ever seen.

fennecfoxen 12y ago

Oh, man, you need to be careful about bringing up the specter of "climate-change denial" like it's going to buttress your point. If the consensus of scientists is something you actually respect, we should consider the attitudes of people whose job it is to study this sort of thing. I'll just leave this here for a user-friendly start and some good references on the consensus of economists: http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf Spoilers: while I don't see immigration specifically addressed here, "cheap labor" is very, very high on the agenda. Free trade and outsourcing score each score >85% support... and it seems unlikely that the free-trade attitude will evaporate just because it's free trade in labor that we're talking about. The sentiments you've expressed can neatly be construed as another kind of economic protectionism of the sort economists loathe...

Bluestrike2 12y ago
For the most part, economists don't really discriminate between the free trade of goods and the free trade of labor. They're so closely linked in any case that they're functionally the same in this context.
- revelation 12y ago
  That's a funny idea in a world where you can't ask someone what they're making and mentioning union will get you fired.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago

You would think the environmentalists on the left would would look at the population projection tables and exercise a little more common sense about immigration. Apparently they have no sway. We're well on the course to a peak population over 400 million, which is way beyond any sane carrying capacity for north america in terms of environmental foot print given american standards of living.

porsupah 12y ago
Given the population and size of the United Kingdom (64,100,000 in 2013, over 94,060 sq mi, for an average density of 661.9/sq mi), or California (38,802,500 in 2014, over 163,696 sq mi, av. density 246/sq mi), I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree that the US (320,206,000 people in 3,531,905.43 sq mi, av. 88.6/sq mi) has quite that modest a sensible capacity. Of course, not every square mile is equal - water is a vital component that's set to become a very pressing topic in interstate negotiations in the coming decades.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  The UK is way overpopulated. If there's ever a hiccup in international shipping they're all gonna starve, just like the krauts back in WWI.

Bluestrike2 12y ago

Informed arguments for increased immigration are the exact opposite of climate-change denial primarily because they're based on actual evidence. Falsely equating the two is the height of folly. Economists have spent enough time considering the issue to suggest that the anti-immigration concerns (they'll take our jobs) are largely incorrect. As for long-term implications, when you start to consider the impact of second-generation immigrants, the negative costs of the first-generation are balanced out. I'm thinking of a couple studies in particular, but I don't have time to track them down at the moment before I run out the door (though those keywords ought to help you find them). In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for "unlimited" immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants. Setting aside the question of where the lines would be drawn under any systematic reforms, there are a number of factors that affect whether a person chooses to immigrate (time, expense, tradeoffs of moving, etc.). The simple fact that the entire population of Mexico hasn't already absconded for the United States would suggest that the fears of an endless horde of immigrants are as unfounded as worry over the population of the Ukraine running for Germany because of European border laws.

greeneggs 12y ago
"In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for 'unlimited' immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants." You might find this article of interest [1], since it counters both these points. Here are a few quotes, first advocating for unlimited immigration, and second suggesting that there is a practically infinite supply of immigrants. 1. "The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital... For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world GDP. For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP." 2. "The Gallup World Poll finds that more than 40 percent of adults in the poorest quartile of countries “would like to move permanently to another country” if they had the opportunity, including 60 percent or more of in Guyana and Sierra Leone... The size of these constraints is apparent in the annual U.S. Diversity Visa Lottery, which allocates permanent emigration slots mainly to developing countries. In fiscal year 2010, this lottery had 13.6 million applications for 50,000 visas (U.S. Department of State, 2011)—272 applicants per slot." Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the paper: "We can check these calculations on the back of the metaphorical envelope. Divide the world into a “rich” region, where one billion people earn $30,000 per year, and a “poor” region, where six billion earn $5,000 per year. Suppose emigrants from the poor region have lower productivity, so each gains just 60 percent of the simple earnings gap upon emigrating—that is, $15,000 per year. This marginal gain shrinks as emigration proceeds, so suppose that the average gain is just $7,500 per year. If half the population of the poor region emigrates, migrants would gain $23 trillion—which is 38 percent of global GDP." [1] Clemens, Michael A. 2011. "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3): 83-106. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83