Ask the Europeans what comes next.
Posted on 09/09/2021 4:17:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Exactly 10 years ago, economist Michael Clemens published a paper in the prestigious Journal of Economic Perspectives called "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" He urged fellow economists to consider a paradigm shift in their research about immigration. Though economists had mostly neglected the global economic losses caused by migration barriers, the existing estimates "should make economists' jaws hit their desks."
As a fellow at a Washington, D.C., anti-poverty think tank called the Center for Global Development, Clemens suspected this research would reveal that by restricting immigration, the amount of wealth we leave on the table globally is in the trillions of dollars. He notes it's essential to seek a better characterization of the gains to labor mobility globally -- gains for the countries to which migrants go and for the countries they leave. He highlighted a few issues economists should explore, including "the magnitude and mechanisms of the effect of workers' location on their productivity, relative to the effect of workers' inherent traits on their productivity." In layperson terms: How much does where you live matter to your productivity?
Thankfully, many economists answered Clemens' call. In fact, it's hard to overstate the importance of this paper and the impact it has had on this field of research.
As George Mason University economist and renowned immigration scholar Bryan Caplan wrote to me, "Before Clemens' seminal paper, even immigration's biggest fans failed to understand the strongest argument for their own position. Namely: Virtually everyone, regardless of skill, is much more productive in the First World than the Third World." And that doesn't just apply to high-skilled immigrants. It also applies to very low-skilled immigrants, who, when they immigrate, can tap into labor markets with efficiently run firms, predictable legal systems and ample capital (think of a tractor instead of a wooden hoe or an electric saw rather than an ax).
In his illustrated book, "Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration," Caplan asks, "how productive would you be in Haiti?" The answer is not very. Better yet, we now know that immigrants aren't the only beneficiaries of their relocations. Caplan explains: "(Immigrants become) so much more productive, in fact, that open borders turn out to be the world's greatest policy opportunity for humanity. Trapping human talent in poverty isn't just terrible for would-be migrants; it is also terrible for everyone who would have enjoyed consuming all the wealth that would-be migrants could have produced."
Here's one of the ways immigrants benefit all of us: A farmer who stays in his relatively poorer country contributes virtually nothing to the global economy. Yet that changes once he arrives in a country where he produces so much more food that a lot of it can be sold on export markets. The global food supply rises, benefiting all people who eat, including Americans. After all, more supply means lower food prices everywhere.
In addition, more immigration means a deeper market for housing, making home sales easier when you wish to move. More immigration also increases the ease of finding caregivers for children, nurses for aging parents and landscapers for lawns -- all of which improve prospects for others to pursue more lucrative employment. Parents, for example, can work longer and more certain hours, and the American who would otherwise mow lawns can become owner or manager of a lawn-care company.
More immigration also increases the construction of offices, retail space and housing. And yes, while immigration may lower local wages by increasing the supply of workers, immigration also increases the number of consumers for other goods and services, which then increases wages by raising the demand for more jobs. Which of these effects win? That's one of the questions Clemens asked economists to tackle.
So far, the answer is that large-scale immigration hasn't made locals worse off economically precisely for the reasons spelled out above. Growing evidence confirms what sound economic theory predicts: Barriers to immigration make us all worse off.
There's so much more to say about this issue. But I'll conclude by saying that those who worry about the cultural or political risks of welcoming newcomers shouldn't ignore the trillions of dollars of wealth we reject when we reject immigrants. It's natural for immigration skeptics to consider proposals that ensure immigrants earn the right to receive government welfare, but it's not OK to leave enormous wealth untapped because of unwarranted fears.
Ask the Europeans what comes next.
This article treats everyone as equal when cultures are not. How else did the inequality occur in the first place if we are all the same?
Does DeRugy factor in the higher costs of crime due to immigration in her analysis? Mohammad Atta was no doubt more “productive” as a terrorist working in the U.S. than he could have been working from Saudi Arabia, availing himself as he did of fancy first-world technology and training and a broken U.S. immigration system. Would take an awful lot of super-productive lawn mowers and nannies to balance out the “negative externalities” he brought to the U.S.
Donald Trump said it first.
“They aren’t sending their best”
The book probably has a chapter saying that one statement using a million words.
As George Mason University economist and renowned immigration scholar Bryan Caplan wrote to me
The air is a bit stuff in 'dem eye-vor-ree towers.
But I'll conclude by saying that those who worry about the cultural or political risks of welcoming newcomers shouldn't ignore the trillions of dollars of wealth we reject when we reject immigrants
I am quite fine with ignoring trillions of dollars of wealth. I'd rather be a rich American than a filthy rich globalist that willing destroys the lives of others.. As for all those Muslims you so much want in America, Veronique de Rugy, they should remain close to Afghanistan so that one day they can return to free Afghanistan. I rather not take the risk or tax dollar expense of them coming to America and being a fiscal and cultural burden along with all the other people immigrating from other shithole countries.
There ya go.
This article is a bunch of codswallop.
The dissolution of the country continues.
The author ignores the elephant in the room.
The wealth that author envisions would be taken from the current American citizens whose employment prospects, salary and quality of life will be stripped from them & distributed to the immigrants but even more so to the Globalist Corporations.
IOW wealth left on the table but not for thee.
Immigration quotas must be administered to be a net good forAmericans & USA. Entry should be based on merit and on the current needs of the American people not the present situation of dumping unassimilated uneducated hordes with no desire to work for their goals across America, for communities to support, for crime to flourish and for disease to spread.
Regards,
Right!
I call Bullshit!
Large scale immigration causes a poorer & dirtier society. We already have 350 million in this country half do not work. We don’t need any more third worlders to enhance our economy.
Most use more in government programs than they put in. The only beneficiaries are the large corporations & wealthy who get cheap domestic help. Our wealthy have always imported slaves top do their dirty work & increase their wealth.
In 5 years the Indians will have 90% control of all American computer systems. And mostly all American computer analysts will be greeters at Walmart. The Indians DO NOT like Americans.
The Deplorables want a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill, missing since 1986 ONE TIME amnesty. Since that amnesty was granted already, a second amnesty is off the table. What remains is the enforcement the Democrats have disallowed since then.
The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1986 goes like this -
1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.
Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.