FYI ... From the US Census Bureau SHARES OF AGGREGATE INCOME (US) Year - "Number (thousands)" 2015 - 125 819 (000) Percent shares of aggregate* income (by percent of population): "Lowest 20%"--"Second 20%"--"Third 20%"--"Fourth 20%"--"Highest 20% of which Top 5%" --- 3,1%--------------8,2%-------------14,3%----------23,2%------------51,1%-------------22,1% *Aggregate meaning "absolutely all" - Wages/salary, interest, winnings, investments, etc.
very very dumb idea of course. 2-3 billion people would come to America and the American culture would die. American culture is the last best hope for liberty on earth. It must be preserved and strengthened not diluted.
It is a dumb idea, and certainly breaths life into the old Orwell quote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” However if a single country wants to volunteer as a test case, it would be interesting to collect data and see how much free lunch they get.
What is a dumb idea? Free Tertiary Education? Never got any Primary- or Secondary-schooling, did you, which taught you how to read-'n-write? Anybody who would think that (without explaining why or how in a debate-forum) is really ... huh, dumb. Stoopid. Inept. Blind. Backward. Etc., etc., etc. ...
So your reaction to my response is insults? "dumb. Stoopid. Inept. Blind. Backward" indeed! In my post I posited a test case is needed for data. You're currently in France correct? I think that would be a wonderful test case! If you oppose my suggestion of a test case nation, please try to explain why without ridiculous insults.
No test cases are needed. To those who know how to read, the present economic findings are sufficiently enlightening. For some, evidently not for all ...
All this new found wealth would degrade the environment, accelerate global warming, and kill us all dead......unless solar powered robots were the only ones sneaking across the border.
Aint gonna happin. Not on this planet with supposedly more than 6900 distinct languages in existence. (See here.) Let's just try to avoid war with the present set. Is that too much for which to ask ... ?
True enough - we are well on our way to overcrowding this planet. In fact, that factor was at the heart of the Paris Agreement. It is not the earth that creates polluted air, but humans living on earth. After Trumps visit to the 14th July parade in Paris recently there was the slightest indication that maybe he could change his mind regarding the agreement. But, when that ever happens is anybody's guess. Providing he has a mind - which has not yet been verified. But, this administration is said to be "workin' on it" ...
Trump is a business man. To him Paris is a bad deal because it would require us to pay tens of billions of dollars to other nations for nothing tangible in return. Environmentalist need to just harping about rising oceans and dead ant species, and make a sellable economic argument---all US government money spent on alternative energy must be spent in the US on US manufactured goods. Make America Great and Green Again seems like something he would go for.
Why are no test cases needed? Nothing like this has been done before. Well it has, but it's typically called invasion. Why would you not want to run a test case?
Ah, the waft of smug...... Typical liberal. No testing needed...The fantasy must be true, because it was uttered.. So, I would imagine that Mssr Lafayette will now trot off to the barricades.......
Interesting perspective from a conservative. For instance, the empirical evidence of "trickle down" (reduce taxes on rich/corporations and everyone gets richer) demonstrates that it fails miserably in its design objectives, other than making the rich richer, so it seems "testing" with unfavorable results should be ignored and the idea rinsed and repeated. Funny how ideological entrenchment blinds one to their own hypocrisies.
I imagine that, even were there some overall net benefit to GDP, it would all accrue to the ultra rich in the form of lowered wages. Let's not forget, it's possible for GDP to go up while the overall standard of living in a particular country goes down. Example, if there's more disease (open borders), people will spend more on medical care, but that doesn't mean the quality of life has gone up. GDP change is not necessarily a good indicator of improvements in quality of life.
Blah, blah, blah - I've posted on this site a "ton" of infographic data based upon economic research. (This is afterall, the "Economics" forum, isn't it?) And most of the Rabid Right has posted nothing but pedantic sarcasm - myopic as they are beyond the three-mile offshore limit. If you've got bonafide economic research to support your arguments, then post them! Otherwise, moving right along ...
The idea many liberal economists seems to have is that, if we could only move all the poor people from the rest of the world into the "wealthier" countries, we could help them, that it would be a free lunch. Of course it's obvious it's not that simple. For one thing, as Western countries across the world have been finding out, it's not just some free lunch to hand out more opportunities to a never ending inpouring of people (it starts negatively impacting the people already living there, limited number of good jobs and shortages of affordable housing in major urban areas). And why shouldn't we be able to help these people in the countries they're already in? As if we can only help them if they get up and move here and relocate. For another thing, even if we were to TRIPLE the amount of immigration, it would only be a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the impoverished population living in the rest of the world, as Roy Beck explains in this presentation.
What are you waiting for? Proof-positive when the rate of lung cancer skyrockets? Too late! Too late! Too late !!!!!
Pure fantasy, all of your objections. The thesis is based upon a verifiable fact - more workers earning more money and spending it. The economy thus supports itself. Of course, if banksters may want to make quick-megabucks (ala SubPrime Mess) that triggers yet another Great Recession. But that you can't blame that on the migrants. (Blame it on our upper-income tax codes that induce people to break the rules.) America is a nation of migrants since before 18th century. It's hugeness makes for a market-economy that will continually attract poorer peoples. What can be done is that the US changes the process. That is, the workers it needs it chooses to allow them migration to the US. (Immigration is something else. It is obtaining US citizenship.) No migration by sneaking across the border, but by picking up a valid visa to enter the US based upon a promise for work that is verifiable. This essentially means two kinds of workers. Those with advanced talents and therefore likely to stay on the job or pursue a career in their line of work. And the rest coming in to do short-time jobs (typical of agriculture) who will come and go depending upon the work available. We must disabuse illegal migrants of the notion that, though illegal, in time they can become legal. But to do that, the illegals must sought and made to leave. (Two strikes against an illegal and they are permanently banned from entering the US.) This is well regulated in the EU, because the right tools are employed. That is, a National Identity Card without which no work-permits are offered (unless you are a member of the EU). And an enforcement body that actively seeks out those working without Work Permits, and moves them out. (Two strikes and your out - that is, you go to prison.) The US could adopt the same and should. The country needs an Identity Card that is contains DNA-identification.
Hey, that gives me a totally original idea that no one has ever ever thought of before...why don't we smash every window in the country? The economic growth generated by replacing all of those windows... GDP! GDP!
You've not posted any econometric models or data supporting this idea. All you posted was a breezy article from The Economist. And worse then that, you won't even defend the idea or explain why you think it's such a great one. Instead, just snark. You should change your username to Snarkomist.
A test case in which a first world nation that somehow magically is a first world nation, opens it's borders in an unlimited way to the entire world, granting them legal residency and right to work.
Every person on the entire planet could live in a tiny portion of Texas at the density of Manhattan. The more people the more people trying to cure cancer. I'm all for it.