Increased demand for housing will cause costs to spike, which means that those most willing and able to pay larger amounts will live where they wish, and everyone else will be relegated to far outskirts, including nonimmigrants whose incomes fall further behind cost of living. In this scheme, generous profits will be made by landowners of high-demand locations, and shareholders of corporations who can take advantage of the influx of labor and the expanded customer base. It's not too different from our world's current direction, except within a particular state, the absolute numbers of the wage class and the underclass would be much larger.
FTA: “If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.”
Because illegal immigrants do not use visas. So you would be hurting law-abiding people and encouraging circumventing the law - if you can't afford the visa anyway, the question of "should I just through the hoops to get legal visa or try illegal immigration" becomes moot.
> make them pay extra taxes
Why would they pay those taxes? They'd just work on black market and report zero income and apply for welfare. High tax burdens reliably breeds avoidance and lack of compliance, especially in population that is kinda on the sidelines of the law as it is, as it often happens with migrants. And of course it would also sell awfully in the press - imagine an article of how a migrant from Guatemala pays a higher tax rate taxes than a billionaire born in New Jersey - how that would look in next congressional debate?
> restrict their access to welfare benefits
You can do it, but then you'd get exactly what welfare benefits are created to remove - a large population of people who do not have access to basic services, and thus have high level of disease, crime, misery and human suffering. If you accept the idea that welfare benefits are necessary because we should not have too many people like that in our society, then denying people in the country these benefits because they were born in wrong place contradicts this idea. Gating the access to this system on immigration status contradicts the whole premise of having the welfare system. I don't think there's a logically consistent model of welfare state with open borders at all - unless we somehow postulate that welfare spending has a reasonably low upper bound, which I haven't seen proven anywhere.
> Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants,
Of course you could, but why charging lots of money for visa would be more effective in solving problems we have now than any other method that's been used?
> thus avoiding big, sudden surges.”
Big, sudden surges usually happen due to wars, famines, economic collapses and other such events, in which case I seriously doubt visa prices are going to change anything.
You could then fund a guaranteed basic income (for citizens only), and just adjust the sales/tax yearly to balance the budget-- everyone pays taxes, no deductions are given, but GBI would guarantee people wouldn't live in poverty at all. It'd be easier to manage technically so we could dismantle welfare and handout programs as well as the IRS.
With current political and budget system, I don't see any path to this ever happening. Maybe in theory that could be a better solution (I don't know, it would need thorough analysis) but I don't see how it could happen in reality.
> You could then fund a guaranteed basic income (for citizens only),
Again, same argument applies. If GBU is a benefit for society, there's no reason to gate it on citizenship - we'd be just limiting the benefit on irrelevant metric, it's like demanding to lower your own salary if your boss' last name begins with certain letter - it'd be irrational. If, however, it is not beneficial to society but is a wealth transfer which benefits one group while hurting another, because the former has more political clout - one should argue this should never be done at all, citizen or not.
Something like this could then be adopted as a global currency and have gbi paid out to all members monthly. Perhaps we could create a not-for-profit corp that creates small businesses where 100% of left over income goes back to consumers who use the store (think grocery) and workers who work in the store as a bonus.
Anything a company pays money for goes to consumption including: Wages, Power bill, Land, Buildings, Planes, Trains, Transportation of Goods.
Poor would be offset by guaranteed basic income and universal healthcare. GBI would basically be a negative income tax, the 4% is variable and can be raised/lowered yearly whether the country's in the black/red - but only 1-2 points per year w/ congress's approval. Also 4% was just a number I pulled out of ass, could be 7 or 8% instead.
I don't see how poor would suffer under this if they have a guaranteed 30-40k income if they don't work one day the entire year. Sure they might spend all of that back in food, tax, shelter, etc..but they have food, and shelter which they may not have had before.
The only stipulation on GBI would be you must have a residence to collect. (If you want to remain homeless and spend all cash on Meth, that won't work, you need to at least get housing).
I've heard of schemes that involve fully paying for GBI using ONLY land/resource taxes, but I think that wouldn't be enough to pay for things. But we don't need a military as big as we have, there's lots of places we can cut corners and spend less money.
WE need to explore our budget and use tech to lower costs across the board as much as possible and streamline things.
This would immediately make non-documented people and visitors with greencards pay a lot of taxes. It's their choice if they want to stay/pay or go and not-pay their share, but the republicans can stop whining about immigrants not paying their fair share if they pay 3 times the sales tax.
Maybe do some research before suggesting something like this.
Those who own homes/land/property will pay more because they're expenditures are more.
Example: You earn 70k per year, you get 30k for gbi. That's 100k. Of that, you spend 80% on housing, school, food, clothes, toys, w/e, and invest 20% for retirement.
Of that 80% you spend 5% on taxes via sales tax. So roughly $4,000 a year in taxes.
If you earned 30k, and didn't work at all i.e. 30k from gbi alone, and spent all of it, you'd have spent 1500 on taxes, but still be able to feed/clothe/house a family in at least some comfort.
I don't see how that makes life unbearable for everyone? If you're an immigrant who isn't a citizen yet, you'd pay a bit more, but that's the price of coming to America, deal w/ it. At least you'll never be deported, or have your family ripped away from you, etc...
This is a libertarian pipe-dream that will never happen in the current political climate. They envision free movement and no welfare/safety-net (for at least alien immigrants). Even if that is federal policy, states and cities will pick up the slack.
The rest? Just another way to end up with millions of undocumented/illegal immigrants (like we have currently with impossible standards to meet for legal immigration). Can't force someone to pay "extra taxes" if they are working under the table for slave wages.
No doubt The Economist could care less if migrants pay taxes, for them they pay their way solely by providing cheap labor to businesses.
Half of undocumented immigrants pay taxes.
The total local, state, federal burden of all the benefits they receive, greatly outweighs the pitiful amount they pay in taxes. 2017 stats indicate $19B paid into the system, $135B in services taken out: a net $116B loss to America. https://www.scribd.com/document/359997156/Cost-Study-2017-We...
Even if you say that "FAIR is biased", and discount the numbers by 50%, you still have a negative impact of over $50B a year.
California, ALONE, spends over $30 billion a year on services for illegals.
$10.6 billion in paid taxes: according to your link "overall effective tax rate of 6.4 percent". Explain how that is fair, please...
People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings.
But I get it... freedom and markets when it benefits you and exclusion and socialism when it doesn’t.
> People who come here legally and illegally are just like you and me, wanting the same things, to work, live, and provide a better future for their children. They are human beings.
That's great, but it still affects people already legally here who also want to "work, live, and provide a better future for their children". The H-1B program gets a lot of ire from these parts because it has a downward effect on salaries and job availability for US citizens in the tech sector. But I guess that's no problem when it's the same deal just for jobs none of us would ever consider.
Source - Every economists research that either does or does not come true from proposed changes in economic policy.
This is true if you define 'coyote' as anyone who transports an immigrant to their destination country. Most people would just call them 'airlines', just as immigrants used to arrive on 'ocean liners'.
>Increased demand for housing will cause costs to spike
This is only true in the presence of severe restrictions on supply. These exist in some, but not all, areas of the United States with high immigrant populations. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13071.pdf
>It's not too different from our world's current direction, except within a particular state, the absolute numbers of the wage class and the underclass would be much larger.
For a thought-provoking modest proposal to realize these potential gains and ensure they are captured by current working-class Americans, see the Posner-Weyl Sponsor an Immigrant plan. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/immigrati...
If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.
This is what the US does right now through the lottery system but it's just so restricted that no one in their right mind could call the US borders "open".
There are other periods of time that have been as good or better with a different political platform. In the 1950s (when America was “great”) the top tax rate was 90%.
Federal politics and the economy are linked, but not 1:1 and the net impact of changes to federal law often isn’t felt for years or decades (if at all).
50s was an anomaly with a 36% growth rate, like you said, because we were all that were left. The economy currently is very stable, diversified, and fast growing still for its size, some 70 years later.
I keep seeing these overly optimistic GDP growth numbers, but I can't find them.
Instead, since the 1970s, US thought leaders and business leaders of both parties long pursued similar trade policies that embraced deregulation and open markets, which allowed similar gains to be realized by US businesses operating in a globalized world (e.g. outsourcing, offshoring, integrated supply chains).
SV companies pay generously because dozens of companies flush with cash are all competing for the same pool of veterans of other companies. Any company that has less profit per employee (most small businesses) can scarcely afford to pay a premium for rank-and-file employees with domain experience; nor is there enough effortless mobility in specialty skilled manufacturing roles to make such escalating wages necessary.
it would appear US is in similar leagues with Canada, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, etc, of having close to 0-1% in poverty. Check out the other countries in Asia or Africa if you really think America has it bad.
Something's clearly misaligned with the definition of poverty between your sources; you're differing by an order of magnitude
edit: strong lang.
If you look at the figures for net migration per 1000 inhabitants, the USA and Germany are pretty much the same for the period between 2007 and 2012: 15.94 per 1K and 15.54 per 1K respectively. For 2017, the USA sits at 3.9 (Canada 5.70).
Not to discount your experience, i am sure you've been through a lot of paperwork (i know i sure have, and i'm yet to meet someone who enjoys immigration departments!) but the US is pretty damn tough if you are not a) wealthy and/or b) highly educated and in demand.
You can get an EB1 (greencard in 3 months if you qualify.
You can get an O/L/E visa in a few months same thing with H1b.
And you have way more ways to get in.
Also you need to make the proper comparison with EU not just cherry pick a few countries. I can cherry pick countries to where it's very hard (try Denmark for instance).
My claim was EU vs US again 11 million illegal immigrants living here and for a large part contributing to the economy that alone would never happen in the EU.
And you don't need 1Million for a EB1. It's a merrit based greencard (just like O1 visa is)
You can also work in any state the second you are in the US.
I think you got the wrong information here.
Not at all. I know a couple that tried to move to Canada after Trump got elected but were shocked to find out they'd have to deposit 250k USD with the Canadian government for 5 years in order to be considered for permanantly residency.
Not only that, the demand for people to move into the US is tremendous so the competition is obviously very steep compared to less desireable places.
edited: strong lang.
Sort by Net Migration Per 1,000 Inhabitants
Even after decades, and generations, immigrants from certain regions have absolutely abysmal rates of employment in more developed countries they have settled in. How would an even larger scale of immigration flip the trend we can already witness, a complete 180 degrees? Many seem completely content on living on benefits alone, or fully unable to find employment with the skill set they have gathered, even when they have born in the country where the natives fare much better. The way I see it, the money that is being spent on these people could be spent with a far better interest elsewhere.
78 trillion, truly, is a fantasy pulled from a behind.
I think it depends on the specific form of migration to that country. For example the USA or Switzerland have very high skilled people coming to their country. In Germany too, but there was and is also a large influx of very uneducated migrants. Currently 55% of all welfare recipients in Germany are people with a migration background which shows that the opportunities/capabilities are not equal.
I do think though that welfare can still work with free movement, it is just that there would need to be a similar level in all/many countries.
...A world where everyone's mother is a prostitute would be considerably more economically active.
Its a shame the economy is seen as a end rather than a means.
I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It would be to the people driving them to move.
You don't get to discount China/India/etc.'s growth as "inevitable catch-up growth" on one side of the equation, yet fully count it on the other side.
As a consequence, I support reverse-mercantilist trade policy, foreign student education and practical training, outsourcing, and tech transfer, especially for countries like India which both have a lot to gain and are strategically highly aligned with the US (I acknowledge that China is now a more complicated case), to the extent that Americans can continue to bear these things. (Canadians and Australians seem to be fine with continuing these practices indefinitely, while also letting a pretty high number of skilled nonwhite foreigners from poor countries settle permanently.) And I violently oppose the grossly inefficient mass-low-skill-immigration policy that threatens to turn Americans, Germans, and others against the overall project while accomplishing so little.
An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen.
This means that while theoretically 'wealth' is increasing it is increasing in such a way that those who are in the position to pay wages keep more of them and those in the position to receive them get much less.
In short then what's the point of an average in a power law distribution which by definition does not have a defined average?
Or to put it even more dumbly would you rather live in a world of 100 units of wealth distributed between the 5 quintiles as [80.0, 16.0, 3.2, 0.64, 0.128] or one of 20 units distributed as [6,5,4,3,2]. For 2/3rds of the people in the world the second would be better.
Why not use them, if they're more qualified?
The only reason why employers can fleece immigrants in US today, is because immigrants are effectively "locked in" - e.g. if you're on H1-B, you can't change employers without going through a bunch of paperwork; and if you get fired, they just kick you out of the country. Which, obviously, means that you can't negotiate from the same position of strength as a native. But remove those, and why do you think an immigrant would demand to be paid any less? We're not stupid.
Because you're poor. An Indian in India makes 1/20th the wage a US citizen makes in the US. If they get 1/15th you have just received a huge raise and are happy.
Besides, why would someone take 1/15th, if they can have the whole thing? I mean, by a similar logic, you'd expect people in US readily undercut each other at 1/2th, 1/4th etc in a race to the bottom. But we don't.
Listening to the dumps some of my co workers live in I can see why median hourly wages have not increased in the last 40 years.
This is political economy 101. One of Malthus's suggestions for reducing the mortality rate was getting exotic materials to become staples of life so food wouldn't be the limiting factor of population.
If you were to strip everybody in the Forbes 1000 list of their US citizenship (someone like Singapore or Monaco would surely step up to provide them with a valid passport), relieve them of IRS personal income filing duty, but allow their money to stay in the US economy, the economy would look the same and act the same. But the income disparity numbers would look much brighter.
If every American shopped on Rakuten vs Amazon, bought Samsung vs Apple, searched on Yandex instead of Google, banked at Barclays vs Chase, took a Didi vs Uber, if every hedge fund manager was based in Zurich vs Greenwich, US income disparity would not be so jarring, as the wealth would accrue elsewhere, exporting the income disparity with it.
Would the US economy be better off?
You seriously think poor people's quality of life hasn't increased in the last 50 years?
Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones.
I would argue that Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living for poor people than the last 50 years of social engineering but I know how much people like the downmod button...
I'm actually curious what quality of life metric you're judging by that's declined in the last 50 years?
And, btw, I wasn't proposing some new measure of Quality of Life through the size of the living room TV but using it as an illustrative example of technology becoming more accessible to more people at lower costs. Same with the smartphone reference, having the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips seems like a quick and easy way to improve one's lot in life.
I do wonder if people would complain if Walmart managed to decrease housing and healthcare costs using their aggressive bargaining tactics like they've done with generic prescription drugs?
Forgot a requisite huffpo link praising Walmart for prescription drugs prices (whoops, wrong link the first time around) --> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a-london/a-way-to-save-b...
Perhaps the hedonistic acquisition of inessential physical goods is not necessarily commensurate with a higher standard of living?
While there has been progress in the past 50 years, there has certainly also been much regress. When measuring the advancement of a civilization, it seems something other than the pervasiveness of bigger, cheaper screens for reruns of Baywatch (et al.) should be the yardstick.
The quality of food Walmart sells is abysmal. The pressure Walmart put on food manufactures to drop prices played a significant role in the malnutrition and obesity in the us. TVs and smart phones are a very small part of Quality of Life. Having fulfilling work, good health, and a clean environment are more important aspects that Walmart worsen.
Making food less expensive is bad? Never really understood that argument but maybe it's just me...
There are studies on the percentage of income a family spends on food today vs. some time in the past (with "time" depending on whatever study you look at) and it has steadily declined. Less money spent on food == more money to spend on some other necessary thing to live a quality life.
Also, I'd put more blame on the USDA for "obesity in the us" than Wallyworld selling people what they want to buy. People grow up believing in the Food Pyramid and end up becoming overweight through a "well balanced diet" dreamed up through regulatory capture.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bailor/obesity-epide... -- note: #1 result on the google for "food pyramid obesity" is the huffpo so it has to be true...
Making equivalent food lower cost is good. Reducing food quality to reduce price is bad.
I'd be careful making assumptions about the reasons people don't agree with you.
Taking the grandparent comment: "Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?"
I don't disagree with this point because I believe economics is a zero some game, I disagree with it because it's wrong (it takes "everyone being better off" for granted), and I will be on guard to oppose any other initiatives (say, open borders) suggested by a group that thinks like this.
For those confused as to the difference between the two, reread pg's essay on How to Make Wealth. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
I'd like to see more modelling on wage depression to see why this wouldn't have a widespread negative impact.
Additionally this seems like a weird point:
>Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.
If lucrative work were available, wouldn't native-borns already be doing it?
It hugely restricts available options. Either from hours available, lengthy waiting lists or simply finding that after paying childcare work is no longer making economic sense.
The Economist's point is weird/wrong for another reason. Immigrant women have babies too. They can't be both looking after their own children and looking after other people's simultaneously. Expensive childcare doesn't seem like the kind of problem you can permanently fix by just allowing tons of immigration from third world countries.
The lady who lives and babysits across the street from my sister does exactly this.
There is a professional daycare on my block. I see the lady who runs it at our corner coffee shop from time to time. Her kids were in there with everyone else’s. (This was a point she marketed.) She’s an immigrant from Kenya.
Negative. As a child, of a poor family, my childcare was some combination of aunts, cousins, and family friends.
As a parent, while in the military, we often used professional childcare in the form of a daycare. Now, as an engineering, our nanny watches our children along with her own children.
So, personally, childcare has rarely referred to professional childcare.
No, not necessarily. It's more about availability. Even if you do assume it's "professional" childcare in some manner, it's one of the easiest small businesses to start. The regulations are strict, but the requirements are cheap beyond location and food.
My wife ran a daycare out of our house for a short period when our children were small, as it was more cost effective than having two children in daycare elsewhere.
Interesting to see how the rights people usually fight for become unimportant when it benefits you. I hope your nanny got at least minimum wage too.
For the child, this is a time when they are developing language and cultural habits that will have a lifelong impact, ultimately impacting the quality of their employment and spouse. Immigrants will not provide that. It's hard enough finding non-immigrants who can provide it.
Want to guess who he's taken after? His friends. He has a much more neutral accent than either one of us.
That's not to say your interaction or the childminders will have no impact, but if any single person has such a substantial impact on the way your child speaks, then you should be more concerned about their isolation than the English skill of one specific person they're interacting with.
Source? Personally, i'd rather my kid have an immigrant baby sitter speaking and teaching my child in their native language. Plenty of studies around long term intelligence of children learning second languages early on....
This in itself may be a myth:
Hearing nothing but "crisply perfect English" as children robs them of this gift, and normalizes exclusion to them — at the level of awareness that all of the lessons we learn at that tender age: too deeply even to notice, let alone change, without considerable effort, or some specific motivating factor or event (which, having internalized exclusion, is structurally less likely to happen, in the first place).
To me, that's improper child care.
So 95% of children aren't cared for properly? Elitist bull.
It's a matter of degree of course, and there is no perfection, but that doesn't mean one should be complacent with less than the best.
Native-born workers often have advantages (such as speaking the language and understanding the culture) that let them mostly-realistically aspire to better jobs. Even when out of work, they aren't going to decide to be, say, farmworkers, which looks like a a hard, low-paying, temporary, dead-end job to them. Their aspirations have priced them out of the market.
Of course this isn't universal. Immigrants sometimes compete with other people who have a strike against them. Here's an article about the challenges hiring line cooks:
It was the first world war that changed everything.
Things like migration control, passports, visas, formal institute of citizenship, all traces to the time when the imaginary no. 1 boogyman was not Ben Laden and "angry Arab guys," but the German Kaiser and "angry Prussian guys"
The system of rigid citizenship, closed by default borders, and enslavement to a piece of paper called passport was forced onto the world under pretext "if you would not let us do this, the scary Kaiser will be upon you"
This day, it is the permanent surveillance state being pushed into mainstream buy the very same sort of people, and it will be upon the Western countries in no time if that party will not be punched hard in the face with all resolve.
Few interesting factoids from it:
Did you know that theocracy vs bureaucracy was not a decided topic in Europe until mid 19 century?
It was a single letter of a British envoy to China that shocked the crown so much as for it to institute the His Majesty Civil Service modelled after Chinese model of professional institute of career bureaucrats. Something that is traced to first Chinese states in known history.
My grandpa said that every modern state is made by "the 3 grave sins of Chinese people:" 1. Invention of paper, 2. Invention of money, 3. Invention of gunpowder. Indeed, without those there will be no career bureaucrats, no central banks, no conscript armies, and no modern state.
And on Prussians, rulers of the old Europe were not as much afraid of Prussian people themselves, than the spread of ideological "Prusianness." Today, the most relevant comparison to them are members of Ikhvan ul Muslimin in the middle east, and how Arab gerantocracy, and nobility is afraid of them as fire.
Just as with Prussia, Qatar is not as scare to Arab rulers than "Qatariness" - the virulent Qatari identity. An identity of people who are not afraid to demand their rulers to be rightful, and reward them with great loyalty for that.
Any links on any topics mentioned that you can share? Prusianness in particular.
1. providing good child care
2. adding value
Don’t you think that a PhD in their thirties would add more value if they instead focused on their studies subject?
Caring for her own children, she would instill her values as they grow. Her children would most likely get a love of knowledge and a determination to accomplish long-term tasks. Since she can produce many children, the number of people with these values experiences exponential growth from generation to generation.
If she instead outsources love to an immigrant from the third world, that other person will instill third-world values in the children. The likelihood of the children taking after their mother is greatly reduced, down only to any influence of DNA. The culture is not passed on. When fewer than two of the children take after the mother, there is an exponential decline.
In general, your direct impact on the world in nothing compared to the impact that your children can have. This likely applies even to the greatest scientists, and without question it applies to a random ordinary PhD.
What does this even mean? Please elaborate your hierarchy of cultures and their “values.” What about all the wildly successful and educated children of immigrants from these countries who are in the US now?
Yes. This world would benefit from having less kids, no doubt. Also less helicopter parents and more science.
If you're doing anything with your life right now that isn't full-time child-rearing, then you don't really believe what you said.
So it is not enough just for people with high IQ to have many children.
The adult needs to follow their passion/dream/work to develop the intelligence and contribute back to the society.
Smart people having more kids is not the full solution, but it is a part of the solution, and a neglected one. People already talk about improving education a lot. But it seems that education can only go so far -- some children get better results unschooled than other children get in schools.
Rents up 10%. Everyone working longer for the landlords.
Gains go to land under the current system. We already added women to the workforce more, rents went up.
Just imagine: If housing were that great of an investment, everyone would get enough credit to build, making effectively everyone a landlord.
I think that's exactly right, but also an unfortunate reflection on the way it needs to be framed to make people pay attention.
Part of the problem with today's economy is that it's basically impossible for a middle-class woman to have a child and work. There needs to be a large population of unskilled laborers to do these kinds of low-level jobs that a person with a college degree won't do.
This is why data shows areas with a large population of lower-class have a higher fertility rate.
It is safe to reject your model. Moreover, if you do not adjust your beliefs in response to contrary evidence, it is appropriate to presume that you are arguing in bad faith rather than trying to figure out the truth, and dismiss everything else you say on this subject. (This principle is equally applicable to someone arguing the other side of this particular issue in similar bad faith, of course; reversed stupidity is not intelligence.)
It seems like you have a lot of confounding variables to work through to make this case with such confidence, if you have research that makes this case I would like to see links to it.
There are a lot of papers which cover this. Starting with a Google search on population density and fertility rate, without including "causes" in the search, the top academic results I get are:
The population density-fertility rate assumption was not made without evidence.
- access to affordable childcare increases fertility rates
- inflows of lower-skilled workers to an area would increase access to affordable childcare
- a way to increase the quantity of lower-skilled workers would be through immigration
This is actually an interesting idea worth thinking about more. If the concern for those on the right is that more immigrants to the US would cause a permanent electoral Blue Wall by flipping Texas in a couple election cycles, and those on the left see economic migration through a humanitarian lens, then re-thinking what Citizenship means and the rules for participating in a democracy could be on the table as part of a compromise. I imagine a sizable percentage predicate their reason on wanting to come to the United States on earning money, not voting in elections (though I could be wrong, but I don't think I am and I doubt this question gets asked to newcomers). The natural reaction to such a proposal would be that we'd be creating tiers of citizens (Native Born vs Full Citizens vs residents or something along those lines). I don't have a problem with that, per se, but I can see how a lot of people would.
It's even more amusing with non-citizens who aren't green card holders, because not only they still pay all the taxes, but they're denied most of the benefits those taxes fund (so e.g. you still pay social security on your wages, but you don't get to actually claim any payments when a citizen could).
So I don't think there's any insurmountable political obstacle here.
But even beyond that, "taxation without representation", as originally used, didn't actually mean voting rights per se. The complaint, rather, was the lack of anyone specifically representing the interests of the colonies, because they were basically arbitrarily assigned to districts in Britain proper for the purposes of parliamentary election. So not only colonials didn't vote, but their MP would typically never even set foot on the territory he supposedly represented... which is why it was pointed out that it's not really representation.
However, representation was not equated to vote - keep in mind that the original franchise wasn't even universal among white males. However, those that couldn't vote were still deemed to be represented, on the basis that they lived in the same district as the voters.
Even today this principle still applies: while only citizens vote, the number of congressional seats, electors etc is calculated on the basis of the entire state population as of the last census, which doesn't distinguish citizens and non-citizens. So areas with large non-naturalized immigrant populations effectively award more voting powers to their resident citizens to "represent" the rest of the district. And this practice was explicitly blessed as valid by the Supreme Court in Evenwel v. Abbott.
(The integration part is a touchy subject in Germany. My point more directed at the idea that you can have a country with a permanent class of non-citizen immigrant workers. You probably cannot do that in a liberal Western democracy.)
They also have had issues with "assimilation" for every ethnic culture but lately MENA has caused a divide. It resulted in them limiting their intake. You can read a lot about it via the recent refugee crisis. There were stories of gangs of migrants roaming the streets, I only heard about a case of rape but there might be more. I don't think its right to throw everyone together in the clump referenced. However, from talking with folks there — their collective German culture and German ways of doing things is very important to them. If you don't act or think German you certainly are an outsider. I also never got the vibe it was ever a skin color thing, but it is a language and cultural assimilation thing.
Other than violating many Constitutions you mean? It's bad enough to have invisible castes as is, now enshrining it into law would be a regression.
Importing Latin American politics by way of culture would be a terrifying disaster. There is hardly a place on earth with less stable government systems or human rights protections.
Transparency International ranks Latin America as the worst place on earth for corruption, only rivaled by a few parts of third world Africa.
Latin America is the most violent and corrupt large region on earth. People that think the US has a high murder rate, have never been anywhere near a typical Latin American country. The US has a non-murder violence rate comparable to developed Europe; Latin America's rate of non-murder violence is comparable to a war zone (and its rate of murder is best described as a war zone).
London's explosion of acid attacks, stabbing murders, and extreme violence problems are a crystal clear example of how you have to be very careful when you import foreign culture. Cultural adjustment & acclimation is very difficult and takes a long time.
Very few countries in Latin America function at all. They roll from one civil war, dictatorship and disaster to the next. The reason for that is cultural (and no, trying to blame the US for every problem in Latin America doesn't actually work as an excuse; unless you're going to credit the US for Canada's success and any successes in Latin America as well).
If the US is going to import a vast number of people from Latin America, it's also very important to not import the failed cultures of Latin America that have led to extreme murder rates, extreme poverty, extreme violence, and endless failed political systems.
Latin American Socialism is one of the great political and cultural failures of the last two centuries. It needs to die in Latin America, the sooner the better. Turning the US into a Venezuela, Bolivia or Brazil through cultural import is the worst possible outcome.
But I’d need more than a base assertion... can you address specifically the theory that the U.S. has deliberately propped up corrupt governments sympathetic to US corporations to the exclusion of democratically elected ones?
I think tying it to time should work out ok though since the value would increase over time by doing nothing. Everyone wants newcomers to have less say. At the federal level your vote would always be 1/1. As far as historical connotations go, that's for representation in congress, those people couldn't vote.
It's efficient because it reduces the bargining power of labour to nothing, and those that gain are the owners of capital. With no bargining power, benefits will disappear and everyone will be non permanent except those in very secure positions or in very specialist jobs.
People will no longer have a home - a place to belong, they'll either break up families with parents working on other countries, or children will endure an existence of jumping from place to place eroding the chance for normal development.
Society will be broken and the ability to self organise to build political movements will evaporate.
This will not be a nice world to live in for 99.9pc of the population.
If we are thinking of pie-in-the-sky ideas like open borders, then why also try to think of a way to spread good government and wealth across all parts of the world?
I.e., spread the best practices so they become universal.
Some ideas in the past, like Europe colonising and controlling much of the world, are obviously out of fashion today. Yet ironically many people have voted with their feet (or would like to, if given the opportunity) and moved to Europe.
Sales tax would be more of a consumption/outbound tax -- all outbound expenses would be taxed if you buy or pay anyone it's taxed on payers side. So example a company pays wages they pay a sales tax on the wage, they buy office supplies, pay dividend to shareholders, pay ceo a bonus or golden parachute, buy land, etc... People would be taxed for paying rent, buying food, buying houses, buying land, etc.. on the purchase/exchange of money.
GBI would paid out to all citizens and sales tax could be adjusted yearly to balance the budget if there's a surplus/deficit from previous year.
Welfare/IRS can be dismantled completely and everything automated via technology. Saving billions. We'd need a lot less accountants, and tax workers. Tax software for consumers wouldn't be needed, etc.. It'd shore up a glut of industry we don't need.
GOP'ers claim they hate immigrants because they don't pay their fair share, or will take their jobs. If they paid more than their share of taxes then it would get rid of that entire argument, and is the basis for my idea.
There could be tiers perhaps.. Citizen, ALmost a Citizen, Visiting w/ Work Visa temporarily, No documentation. W/ the last segment having the highest tax bracket. I mean no offense, but you'd then just need to choose does living in America = worth it by paying the extra taxes. At least you wouldn't be pushed out..
Maybe they could have another level Not-citizen but has voting privileges (of course that might come with a higher tax bracket in exchange for the privilege to vote..this would be up for debate obviously... ).
GBI wouldn't cost a fortune, if we get rid of existing handout programs, and streamline a lot of systems, also having a sales tax that we could alternate yearly to easily keep money 'balanced' would help with rolling out new features and testing scenarios to make sure we can afford something like gbi or universal healthare.
A lot of the systems can be automated, IRS does a lot of audits on citizens to make sure they're paying income taxes - we wouldn't do that anymore, we might still need a small agency to enforce that businesses are all in compliance, or that could just be on local/states to figure out.
The fact that there's no tax rebates/refunds would mean everyone pays taxes including the formerly in poverty now collecting GBI. GBI would essentially be their reimbursement/help. But it makes everyone a contributing actor, and if we need to raise sales tax to 15% before we can afford reasonable GBI, that makes sure everyone has a roof over their head, then it would still be worth it.
I think from a technical standpoint we also need to cut/streamline government in a lot of places. Healthcare, omnibuses, etc.. One thing I'd like is a github like format for bills, where you commit smaller bills, that are repealable, so big huge omnibuses are outlawed. It doesn't make sense that to get one small piece you as a senator want you have to vote for 10 pieces you don't want. Everything needs to be in smaller pieces so if something works we can keep it, if it fails we can revert the change like we would a bad commit on git.
The problem is the systems we use all require thousands of people to run, when they don't really have to, we could automate tons of stuff in the government but we don't because of all the jobs that would be lost. W/ gbi that wouldn't be a concern. I can't wait for robots/ai to take away 50%+ of jobs over the next decade freeing up mankind for more creative endeavors.
Then I'd build a not-for-profit grocery chain/and other businesses, where all fiat/crypto go back evenly to users of the coin. I'd buy up homes rent them below market rent values to try and drive rents back down instead of up.
Grocery stores would sell products cheaper, and profits would be split between gbi coin holders who live in that area, and workers at the local businesses we run. Execs at all companies we build would be capped at 100x worker salary. They'd also be not-for-profit (opposed to non-profit), meaning ALL money has to be paid at end of fiscal year to improvements of business, or to wages/bonuses/charity/etc.
I don't have faith in government to be the change we need, we're going to need to think outside the box and create self-sustaining government agnostic solutions.
Unsustainable because their children are automatically citizens. You are merely postponing the problem for some 20 years at most.
Either way, doctors, lawyers, delivery drivers, truck drivers, and 40% of other jobs will go away, replaced by AI. So, something has to fill the void to make it so people don't riot. GBI is the only thing that could possibly do that, unless you have a better solution. Instead of saying 'that won't work' I'd like to see you say, that's not sustainable, how about we do 'this' instead and offer up a suggestion that will work.
Why do you think illegal/undocumented migrants would do better than those supposedly born into privilege?
Why would they also do better than african americans or hispanics, who are already at least 2nd generation migrants (and most are probably much more "rooted" than that) and are still not doing so hot?
Both them and poor whites are at least native speakers and share the same culture with the majority of the country.
> by then hopefully they go to school, and start contributing to society.
That's a pretty big if. It also assumes a utopian world (or at least an utopian country) that is crime free and that by extension, ethnic criminal organizations also do not exist.
*This is a little melodramatic but it gives one a good sense of the scale of the problem with trying to bring everyone to western countries: https://youtu.be/KCcFNL7EmwY
Complete and total globalization of everything on the planet (and perhaps beyond) might be inevitable, but I don't trust the people who are trying to make it happen right now to have any common peoples' best interests in mind, because I'm not naive to human nature (plus I've read up on them).
Freedom of movement doesn't prevent anyone from choosing any culture that they see fit, though. No-one is "disallowing" anything. If cultures end up blending into one, it would be a natural, voluntary process. So why is it inherently bad? Because of the loss in diversity? But if we can't maintain diversity as a species without use of force (which is what restrictions on movement are - at some point you have to forcibly prevent people from moving to implement that), then it would seem that we don't consider it all that important.
If that happens, then the unified consciousness would be incredibly lonely.
This in contrast to when cells assembled into humans, and at least the humans had other humans to talk to.
I think free movement is likely to amplify culture, not mute it. Right now I have to go through tons of hoops to live in Taiwan. The culture is precisely my aesthetic. I've spent untold hours studying the language. There are lots of Taiwanese-culturally-minded Americans and Dutch and South Africans who don't feel at home in their birth culture. Making it a big hassle for them to live in a culture that reflects their values just smears out culturally-Taiwanese across those countries.
It's also interesting that you think globally open borders would only affect the culture of America, but you're okay with that, presumably because whatever Americans consider to be their culture currently is meaningless in your eyes compared to the glorious no-nations-no-borders future world you envision, which conveniently has no negative consequences and is only a positive thing for everyone (except Americans who like their country and culture more or less the way it is now but eh tough luck for them I guess)
If you wanted that, would you not live in Manila?
Why dont we experiment in smaller scale with liberal companies like facebook/google/microsoft opening its employment where anyone from anywhere can come and say i want to be employed here and goog/fb/msft have to take them in? Lets even throw in a restriction that person should be cs degree holder from anywhere in the world. Lets see how it goes.
My friend working for Google moved later to Paris, France because she could and is still working for Google in France, I think companies like Facebook (in Ireland and certain European countries) or Google (literally everywhere in Europe) or even IBM (IBM has quite a few major offices in Asia, not sure why) already practice open border policies as part of a much wider remote working policy and have people from different countries working in different countries (aka somebody Spanish working in US while someone from US working in Ireland for example).
And remote work usually pays local rates (proportionally better than average, but still), not what you'd get in US.
If, yes. All this is conditioned on your racism that tells you that all foreigners are uneducated (and uneducatable)/lazy/freeloaders.
In addition, all of the tax money paid out would immediately be spent by these alleged freeloaders on meeting their needs for food etc., so it would flow back to producers of useful stuff and a lot of it come back as taxes.
Immigrants aren't magic, the ones that want to leave the most to come to the US are the ones from countries with bad education systems and bad social safety nets. Why would someone leave a good social safety net for a worse one?
>In addition, all of the tax money paid out would immediately be spent by these alleged freeloaders on meeting their needs for food etc., so it would flow back to producers of useful stuff and a lot of it come back as taxes
Except for all of the loss incurred by the things they consume. The only thing that comes back in taxes is a fraction of the profit on whatever they consumed.
Unless someone is producing more economic value than they consume, they are a net loss on the whole economy. There is a limit to how many people like this an economy can support before it will collapse.
It's just another insurance market like any other. The premiums coming in (tax rev) have to be more than the payouts (safety nets).
Anyone making minimum wage isn't necessarily using the safety nets either (depending on those nets, and how much minimum wage is), so /shrug/.
More to the point, as the original article also points out, we have had this exact natural experiment in the EU with the recent eastward expansions. Almost all poor people in poor countries stayed where they were. The ones that did emigrate to work... do work.
According to EU law, while there is freedom of movement for work (or whatever other purpose, as long as you are self-sufficient), there is no freedom of movement that allows you to go to another EU country and live off benefits. The "flooded by immigrants who live off of benefits without ever having payed into the system" scenario is exluded by law, and this works in practice.
Other countries could easily copy this system while opening their borders.
Given the rate of expansion of islam, i would say when not if.