
Going to America: A Ponzi scheme that works - petercooper
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15108634
======
petercooper
Just to add some rationale.. this is probably the coolest Economist article
I've read in the last few months. It highlights some of the greatest aspects
of brand America and why opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad
thing.

I think encouraging a policy of significantly increasing US immigration to
people unlikely to cause a drain on the public system should override more
selective policies like the "startup visa," as further general immigration can
only continue to help America's cause.

~~~
geebee
I disagree that this article highlights "why opening the immigration
floodgates would be no bad thing." The article strongly supports immigration,
which is to be expected from the economist, but I'd say it expresses no
opinion on unlimited immigration, other than to mention that "No rich country
allows unlimited immigration".

I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year
is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant" because it does not adopt the
unique policy of unlimited immigration.

I'm also a little surprised to see the economist describing immigration as a
ponzi scheme, even if they do call it one that works. Ponzi schemes always
appear to work for the first few iterations.

~~~
potatolicious
> I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a
> year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant"

The USA _is_ anti-immigrant, not because it doesn't open the floodgates, but
because it has zero organized system with which to import foreign talent that
is needed domestically. You have policies to allow existing immigrants to
sponsor family members, and a myriad of other methods by which people _that
the country has no dire need for_ get in, while talented people demanded by
local industries are locked out.

In this way the US is far, far, far behind every other developed western
nation.

~~~
shrughes
Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other
developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a
country more easily than unskilled?

~~~
jacoblyles
This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic
exercise.

>"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily
than unskilled?"

Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic
externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the
national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from
skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not
have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole
world may experience a net benefit as well.

On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to
generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public
welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled
immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is
unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is
necessary for subsistence.

The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to
live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in
the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line.
If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do
west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the
author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this
experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism.

To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our
immigration policies.

~~~
geebee
I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a
lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes
it _smart_ ", not "what makes it _right_ ".

Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to
someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly
educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I
find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda
dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most
other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's
immensely pro-immigrant.

------
ojbyrne
Random fact - Canada and Australia both have higher foreign born proportions -
[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-
quotidien/071204/dq071204a-en...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-
quotidien/071204/dq071204a-eng.htm). The article seems to phrase things
specifically to not mention them.

~~~
randallsquared
Neither Canada nor Australia have as much population as Mexico _City_. The
article author could be forgiven for overlooking them.

Edit: actually, it appears that the official figure for the Mexico City metro
is 21M; I'd thought it was over 30M. Still true for Australia, though. :)

~~~
ojbyrne
It still weakens the author's thesis, and the paragraph talking about the
comparison to other major countries doesn't read like he overlooked them, more
like he deliberately omitted them.

EDIT: I actually read the whole article now, and he actually mentions Canada
and Australia as threats to the US near the end.

------
jacobolus
The best extended treatment, still, 170 years later, is Tocqueville’s
_Democracy in America_.

~~~
redcap
While I'm sure I can look that up on wikipedia and get some idea as to what
that article is, can you give some examples as to why?

The economist article did a good job of showing that an open and tolerant
America is good at getting people to come to the US and eventually blend in.
It was also very relevant to the America of today, and suggested that despite
some of the bad sides of America that are often amplified in the foreign
press, because people have to work they're more likely to blend in.

From what I read on wikipedia the 170 text does a very good job of explaining
the nature of democracy in the US, and makes a number of predictions that pan
out regarding party politics, but in your view is it still relevant for the
America of the 21st century?

I guess the angle I'm tacking from is the cultural aspects of integration
versus what imo appears to be a treatise just about democracy (albeit what
appears to be a classic).

~~~
jacobolus
It’s several hundred pages and packed with insight – my copy probably has five
or ten thousand words of my marginal notes in it – so it’s a bit hard to
summarize in this little box.

Basically, it describes how the American society and political system arose,
and how they function. It analyses all of these seeming contradictions between
freedom and dogmatic moralizing, etc. I think it’s probably the best book I’ve
read about how popular government operates, and how it differs from exclusive
elite government.

Also, many of the differences Tocqueville finds between European and American
society are still relevant today. If you want to know how the conditions
described in this Economist article arose, and how these various features
interact – what the “character” of (even contemporary) America is – in a deep
way, I can’t think of a better book.

------
mcantelon
If I were to migrate somewhere, I'd migrate to an emerging country rather than
one currently being looted by massive funneling of currency towards finance
industry insiders, HMOs, and defense contractors. The Economist can act as
cheerleader all it wants, but the US debt has risen to dangerous levels.

------
ggrot
Great article, stupid title. They don't explain why immigration is a ponzi
scheme "that works".

------
kingkongreveng_
When is the country full? The US is arguably overpopulated by 100 million. It
is not possible to be an environmentalist and favor continued high immigration
rates.

All this talk about importing "talent" is highly disingenuous. The bulk of
current immigration is low skill and puts pressure on low-end wages, and many
government services budgets.

The history of immigration in America is a handful of waves interspersed by
much longer periods of assimilation with close to zero immigration. The
current wave, beginning in 1968, is absolutely unprecedented in volume and
length.

~~~
petercooper
How is the US "full?" Its population density is through the floor compared to
almost every EU country and Japan. Further, it has a significant amount of
natural resources and spare capacity right now.

By your yardstick, the UK should be considered to be positive heaving, yet
immigrants currently make up a majority of the population increase. I'm not
going to complain - it keeps my house value up :-)

~~~
kingkongreveng_
> it keeps my house value up

On a regular working man's salary my grandfather could rent a house on a
pristine, practically undeveloped beach for a month a summer a short drive
from a major east coast city. You are arguing it's a good thing that
population growth has made this no longer possible.

~~~
petercooper
_on a pristine, practically undeveloped beach_

In your grandfather's time - let's assume 50 years ago - living in such a
place wouldn't even be comparable to now. Most likely no convenient place to
buy groceries, poor communications, poor amenities generally. The value of
that land is significantly improved now - not just because of evil
moneygrabbing property owners like myself, but because it's significant better
to live in remote places thanks to _modern technology_ , so it's under heavier
demand.

I could argue that in your grandfather's time, you could have bought land at
bargain rates in Orlando or Las Vegas whereas now the prices suck.. but it's
not comparing two compatible realities.

~~~
blhack
I disagree. People populate areas and the technology follows them, not the
other way around.

One example of this is a place my family has vacationed since I was an infant:
Crosslake, MN. Crosslake started as a small, sleepy fishing town with gorgeous
views, nice people, lots of fish, and lots of wilderness--basically heaven for
a Minnesotan. Because it was heaven, people started moving there in droves and
drove the property prices to absolutely absurd levels. It went from a place
where your grandfather might own a little fishing cabin, to a place littered
with multi-million dollar estates that have $250,000+ boats parked in front of
them.

This had nothing to do with technology. Only recently (within the last decade
or so) has the town started getting "modern". This didn't prevent people from
flocking there.

~~~
brc
I think the relationship is more symbiotic. The technology that enables more
remote living includes : better cars, roads, communications, food storage.
While none of this probably appealed to your grandfather, it does appeal to
today's families. In addition, you can overlay two trends : a trend toward
environmentalism and 'enjoying nature' and a trend towards increasing amounts
of leisure time. Even the expensive boats you talk about are part of the
scenario. Boats that are reliable, easy to use and run, and built primarily
for pleasure are a relatively recent invention. Because of the boats, the
lakes are more enjoyable, hence more people want to enjoy. They have more
time, more money and it's easier for them to do so - and they probably would
rather now spend the money on a pleasure boat and holiday cottage than on
other forms of consumption, simply because that's the current trend of what
you do with spare time and money.

And don't forget that other technological trend : the camera. Ever since a
photo could show the beauty of a natural place, the visitors followed.
Arguably it was the photos of Yosemite that sparked the initial nationwide
interest in visiting such a place. I could theorise that this same trend has
worked it's way through into every beautiful piece of wilderness - many people
will visit a place simply because they've seen a picture of it. Some of those
visitors will choose to stay as residents.

So my theory is that because of the technology and the demographic trends,
people populate areas that were once considered remote, and it was increasing
awareness of the beauty of remote places that drove the visits in the first
place.

------
gcb
"[america ranking low in tolerance] is a mistake. Some religious countries are
indeed intolerant, but America is not one of them"

this seems to be a good ecnomist article, but its filled with propagada.

america ranks below for tolerance not because of religious reasons, but
because its a police state where the people have no means of contesting acts
and policies of some obscure gov branchs.

right now im on the verge of moving to there, but im scared as shit of the
random people dispearing for ties with terrorism. Fair its still a small
number, and they even might be terrorists, and more importantly its no one you
know. But that there are cases, that are.

~~~
jacobolus
> [ _this article is_ ] _filled with propagada._ [sic] [... _America is_ ] _a
> police state._

Give me a break. People in America have all kinds of “means of contesting acts
and policies.” There are problems with the justice system, as anywhere, but
the courts and the political system are more accessible in America than
anywhere I know.

~~~
gcb
You know very few places.

but i agree that i got the most difficult, and extreme, example of the dozen i
could have used.

~~~
alanthonyc
And where are _you_ from?

As far as I know, America invented the modern incarnation of a country with
"means of contesting acts and policies of...govt."

The fact that America's faults are bandied about for all the world to discuss,
dispute and analyze just goes to show how good of a government it is. It's
like an open source version of government.

~~~
btilly
I was born in the USA and currently work here. I am fully aware of what the
Constitution says and how it has been subverted.

For example consider the 4th amendment protecting us from unreasonable search
and seizure. As [http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-
liberty...](http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-
you-living-constitution-free-zone) points out, 2/3 of the country lives within
areas where the border patrol both can _and sometimes does_ periodically set
up spots where they randomly stop and search whoever they want. In pursuit of
the "war on drugs" courts have come to accept that if your belongings are
directly sued that you personally have no standing to contest the lawsuit, and
_your_ protections against unreasonable seizure is null and void. Telecom
companies at the request of the Bush government made virtually everything
tappable with no oversight. This activity has continued, and telecom companies
have by special act of Congress (the current President voted ye on this) been
given immunity for their violation of our privacy.

We are not an extreme police state. But we are well on our way. As a random
example, in the last several years at every job I have worked at I was unable
to enter or leave my place of employment without a security badge. Just 30
years ago this kind of widespread use of pervasive security systems was
considered unthinkable in this country, and people were _proud_ of it.

~~~
gcb
Exactly. And You talk about the future but you also forget that in the recent
california past decent people had to put "armed response" signs on their
backyards.

