Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gumby 3252 days ago
> Is this the part you're referring to:

> "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."

No, it's this:

> Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

> Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience.

So less than a billion, net, world wide.

> Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.

Well you are free to continue to pay the higher price for the person of the culture you prefer. Others who don't care can pay a lower price. Isn't that capitalism?

2 comments

> Well you are free to continue to pay the higher price for the person of the culture you prefer. Others who don't care can pay a lower price. Isn't that capitalism?

This is not how it works in Germany: migration proponents want tax paying citizens to sustain their utopic dream. Once they have to pay out of their own pocket, the position changes drastically.

> So less than a billion, net, world wide.

So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty" is that it will be "less than a billion", then the article didn't exactly reassure. It's a quibble between basic numbers (population in the third world) vs hypothetical numbers (Gallup's rolodex), not a substantial discussion or disagreement.