

Liberalising migration could deliver a huge boost to global output - JumpCrisscross
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21566629-liberalising-migration-could-deliver-huge-boost-global-output-border-follies

======
yummyfajitas
While I have no quibble with the economics presented here, it is very
important not to overlook the potential negative externalities immigrants
create by voting. The data suggests that immigrants often enter the US and
vote in ways that make the US more like their homeland:

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-gop-can-
teach...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-gop-can-teach-
european-right.html)

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-hispanics-
are-...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-hispanics-are-natural-
democrats-and_12.html)

Whether this particular instance is a good thing or not depends on your
perspective (and is really not something to discuss here), but it is important
to recognize that immigrants can do a lot of good/bad in the voting booth.

Unfortunately, political externalities are a hugely overlooked aspect of this
issue.

~~~
rwmj
Couldn't the US emigrants correspondingly change the way other countries work?

Really what we're saying here is that governments would no longer have a
monopoly on administration, since people who didn't like their government
could move freely to another jurisdiction. Since I didn't actively choose my
government -- I just happened to be born here -- I think this is a great
thing.

~~~
spindritf
> Couldn't the US emigrants correspondingly change the way other countries
> work?

Sure, people of European descent in general are like magic pixie dust:

> In this paper, we (1) construct a new database on the European share of the
> population during the early stages of colonization and (2) examine its
> impact on the level of economic development today. We find a remarkably
> strong impact of colonial European settlement on development. According to
> one illustrative exercise, 47 percent of average global development levels
> today are attributable to Europeans. One of our most surprising findings is
> the positive effect of even a small minority European population during the
> colonial period on per capita income today, contradicting traditional and
> recent views. There is some evidence for an institutional channel, but our
> findings are most consistent with human capital playing a central role in
> the way that colonial European settlement affects development today.[1]

but emigration from Europe/US is not really related to immigration to the
Europe/US. Either could happen without the other.

[1][http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Ross_Levine/other%20files/Euro...](http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Ross_Levine/other%20files/European_Origins.pdf)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Traditional views my foot. Everyone always acknowledged that colonialism
developed new areas. The problem was that it developed them exclusively for
the benefit of the colonist.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The motivation behind colonialism might have been selfish, but according to
the article, it still resulted in economic development benefiting everyone
today.

tl;dr The British may have been greedy jerks, but they still got rid of the
thuggees (making the roads safe) and (mostly) ended sati. Actually it's hard
to find a selfish motive for that last one.

------
iSnow
Ugh.

The author displays an autistic focus on economic benefits, which I believe is
more or less besides the point. Standards of living in the developed world are
very high already, vague promises of '“job upgrades” responsible for a 0.6%
increase in native wages' and 'Some newcomers contribute more in tax than they
receive in services' are not going to reassure those with a lower education
and precarious jobs.

Mass immigration is a cultural and human-rights issue. Disallowing migration
from poorer countries into the first world is pretty harsh on those who really
strife for better education and living conditions. On the other hand, human
societies have cultural traditions and a lowest common denominator on morals,
work ethics, tolerance and democratic thinking.

Mass immigrations threatens both the cultural traditions and the common ground
and therefore absolutely need to be considered.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
> Mass immigrations threatens both the cultural traditions and the common
> ground Citation needed.

~~~
LaGrange
I would say Switzerland, and the cultural and economical benefit they received
from the mass influx of immigrants into a fairly small country during WWII.

Oh wait... though, unsurprisingly, a lot of locals were less than amused.
Though I know that they are less than amused in many other countries as well,
even when the country is pretty large and immigration is minimal.

~~~
subsystem
I suspect that their level of amusement has more to do with themselves than
the immigrants.

