Just skimmed it. His "argument" seems to be an emotional appeal that poor people in poor countries can improve their lives by moving to Western countries. This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for.
Poor countries are almost always poor because of the populations contained within--and if it's from some other cause, such as communism in China, then the resolution to poverty does not require migration, and in fact suggesting migration as a solution is plainly foolish in such cases.
On the other hand, people are perfectly willing to argue that capital markets must be both global and open, and that markets can't operate effectively without free movement of capital. Any country that institutes currency controls is heavily restricts capital inflows is regarded as an economic basket case.
ISTM that if you want a proper free market you have to allow free movement of both labor and capital. Willingness to work is what the poor have instead of capital, and it's their only option for accumulating some capital. Furthermore, if you have open immigration that means migrant labor is also free to leave during times of low demand because departure isn't necessarily a one-way ticket, which means that labor markets can be more flexible and responsive to economic conditions.
I am extremely distrustful of free market advocates who say that their principles suddenly shouldn't apply where labor is concerned. Last time we tried that inside the US, with towns posting signs telling economic migrants to keep going and using vagrancy laws to criminalize the poor, it didn't work out well for anyone. We shouldn't be looking to go back to that.
Really, we're approaching an era of increasing wage equalization as more and more of the world falls out of abject poverty, such that wealthy countries like the US may well face demographic problems from about 2030 onwards due to an inability to attract sufficient numbers of younger migrants to offset the fiscal costs of looking after retirees.
The other point the article seems to completely miss is that it's natural for parents to pass on the fruits of their labor to children. Societies place limits on inheritance to help balance the wealth accumulation, but in general, this ability is see as integral to a health society with strong incentives for building a better future.
The fact that children in the well off countries benefit enormously from the work of previous generations is a very natural and positive fact. Unfortunately, the flip side of this is that other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations. These are hardly questions of fairness, as a misstep could be having a weaker army in the face of an aggressor, but it is a fact of life.
Being an immigrant myself, I cherish the opportunity I have to make a better life for my family and work to make the most of it, but I will never dispute the right of the people of a given country to protect what their fathers and mothers have built for them.
If you look back far enough, those same rich countries look no different than those who suffer today. What I'm not talking about is not social justice or fairness. It's the results of ones life and choices made that affect both people making those choices and those that come after them.
Arguably the greatest of the past empires, who probably fits your profile, is the British Empire. Look back far enough and Britain has been colonized itself several times. The populations there suffered.
Generations of those people worked to bring a better future and their descendants, as well as many others, enjoy the benefits of that work. Why should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor?
My own home is worse off because the cold war didn't go so well for them. Should I be bitter at the western capitalists for this or should I do what I can to build a better life? My personal view is that the latter is far more productive and is likely to result in better outcomes.
Not only that, but if you go back just 60 to 70 years ago[1], there was a lot more parity between countries... For example Mexico rivaled European countries, but they chose different paths.
For a great part, "corruption" did a lot to ensure some countries would do poorly. For the effects of corruption, one need only look at Chile vs Brazil.
I think it's pretty clear economic policy in the last 70 to 80 years had the greatest impact on future growth progress and standing. Look at the standings in 1950. Looked pretty even. You have to remember in 1950 lots of Europe was way underdeveloped, aside from the UK, France and Germany. Less developed than some Latin American countries.
So, I don;t think there is a lot of correlation between history 100 to 200 years ago and their current situation. It's poor governing over the last 50 to 60 years or so.
Venezuela at #4?! Even on a per capita basis, this is very fascinating.
That said, a number of countries seem to be missing. Also, looking at some other years, Austria in 1800s and 1950 are not the same country. I suspect same is true for many others. Still, very interesting data.
> Why should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor?
Is that a rhetorical question? Most people would agree it's unjust to punish children for the sins of their fathers, why is it any more just to reward children for the sins of their forefathers?
> This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for.
The argument is that the fortunate has a moral obligation to help the unfortunate. It may be of religious origin (it's central in Christianity but probably also exists in Judaism and even earlier religions) or it may be just something that is a consequence of empathy.
Some people believe that people born handicapped should have to take care of themselves and that they shouldn't have to contribute anything (eg paying taxes) to their welfare, even if they die. Their lives is not their problem so why should they pay for something like handicapped children that they didn't cause?
I think you have a duty to help the less fortunate because that's the right thing to do, others may disagree. Scale the argument up, and fortunate countries have a duty to help less fortunate ones.
We're not talking about a system where people would rather stay at home, and the Western countries decide they know better and take them away.
We're talking about a situation where people desperately want to get to Western countries, so much so that they risk their lives journeys of hundreds of miles over deserts on foot and oceans in shitty boats, and the Western states are employing thousands of people to keep them out.
This isn't "Take Ye Up The White Man's Burden," this is "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
Yeah it was very heavy on the emotional argument. Some folks in Guatemala even tried to claim asylum for all women on the account that Guatemala's a violent place. (Although the homicide rate against men is about 6x than women.) It sucks, but importing people isn't a real fix. (Now, the US taking over GT and running the government and all services... That'd be a real start, but folks get offended by that workable suggestion.)
> it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them
Do you feel that it is the responsibility of rich people to help poor people generally, if they have a good reason to believe they have an effective way of doing so?
This perspective is ignorant at best, if not arrogant and maybe even plain stupid.
Africa is the poorest continent on the planet. And one reason why so many countries there are in such bad shape is very well directly connected to the "White Man".
Are you aware of the damage European colonialism caused in the 19th century and how much of damage to socities, environment and economics in African countries was caused by US corporations enforcing political systems and establishments that would allow them to steal resources from those countries?
The Western countries do have a lot of direct and indirect responsibility for people suffering over there.
So, when china becomes the most affluent society, I wonder if the author believes people should move to China and put more pressure on their environment.
When people move to more affluent societies they tend to increase the pressure on natural resources. Imagine 7 billion people living first world lifestyles. I think it's unsustainable with current policies and technologies.
Living in the first world would first have to mean leaving leaner before it allows masses of people (billions) to move and consume greater amounts of resources.
Poor countries are almost always poor because of the populations contained within--and if it's from some other cause, such as communism in China, then the resolution to poverty does not require migration, and in fact suggesting migration as a solution is plainly foolish in such cases.