[Mikeb85]

> Bad economics from the point of view of maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity.

Only if you think of humanity as a labour pool. Immigration hurts developing countries as it siphons away labour and especially educated labour, preventing their development... If the goal is economic parity across nations, you help the development of other countries through investment, not by taking their workers.

[_5ysi]

Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient. I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade. As an aside, I'm also not 100% sure maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity should be a goal of national policy either, but that is usually what I consider good economics.

[Mikeb85]

> Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient.

It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss from the fact they're driving down wages in the host country; so they're losing market value on one end, and then driving inflation on the other (and when prices are higher than the local economy can support it's not efficient).

My ex came from a country that suffered from mass emigration, the place is a complete shit-show and is actually less developed today than it was 30 years ago. Half the buildings are abandoned, most are dilapidated, corruption is everywhere, and now the place is a major drug trafficking hub.

> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade.

This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering.

> As an aside, I'm also not 100% sure maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity should be a goal of national policy either, but that is usually what I consider good economics.

There's no such thing as good or bad economics. Economics just describes what is. You can have multiple 'good' or 'bad' policies. It really just depends what you want to optimise for.

Also, maximum efficiency often comes at the cost of driving the price of labour down. If everything was 100% efficient, far less labour would be required than is being used right now, so in the end it comes down to ownership of capital and how things are distributed.

[_5ysi]

I think we mostly agree on most things were talking about.

>> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade.

> This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering.

Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways that alleviate real poverty around the world. However I don't think it is in the contract between citizens of a nation that their taxes should be spent on this to a large extent.

> It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss from the fact they're driving down wages in the host country; so they're losing market value on one end, and then driving inflation on the other (and when prices are higher than the local economy can support it's not efficient).

Being from the US where people want to immigrate to, I haven't thought about this a whole lot and not sure if I understand all of what you are saying. Surely having a wealthy outside investor who is originally from your own country is better or at least equal to another outside investor? Do people lose voting rights when they emigrate, for most countries? (not rhetorical)

> Also, maximum efficiency often comes at the cost of driving the price of labour down. If everything was 100% efficient, far less labour would be required than is being used right now, so in the end it comes down to ownership of capital and how things are distributed.

Again agreed, although the price of capital and living should also be falling! I am not sure what we are talking about with regard to good and bad economics being a thing. All of that was just answering your correct call for clarification about what I meant above.

[Mikeb85]

> Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways that alleviate real poverty around the world. However I don't think it is in the contract between citizens of a nation that their taxes should be spent on this to a large extent.

Yes and no. You're right, a government should provide mainly for its own people. However the stability of the whole world is important for national security and national prosperity. See what's happening in Europe right now: a massive influx of immigrants, increased terrorist attacks, increased crime, etc... I go to Europe semi-regularly (mainly France), and in my travels the difference over the years hasn't been particularly positive.

The main problem is that mass immigration isn't a real solution, Europe and the US/Canada can't support the entire world's population. Development of underdeveloped regions of the world has to be a priority if we want to survive on our planet in the long-term.

> I haven't thought about this a whole lot and not sure if I understand all of what you are saying. Surely having a wealthy outside investor who is originally from your own country is better or at least equal to another outside investor?

It's because the money isn't generally used as an investment, but rather minimum wage workers from the US/Canada send back money to their families, which merely supplements their income. On a whole the influx of money drives up prices, without contributing much to development.

I'd agree if workers came to the US/Canada for 10 years, saved, then went back and invested in their home country. That's generally not how it works though. Workers come here, send small amounts of money back, eventually sponsor their families, and then they all leave.

If you look at statistics as well, it's not the countries with the most ex-pats (and I mean as a percentage of population, not in absolute numbers) that are growing the quickest, but rather countries with a stable rule of law which make investment more attractive (and re-investment by those within the country).

> Again agreed, although the price of capital and living should also be falling!

The problem is that as capital (and land) gets concentrated in fewer hands, the income earned from capital outpaces the income earned from labour, resulting in lower relative wealth for the labour side of the equation. Thomas Piketty explains this well, and has amassed a seriously impressive set of data to back up all his assertions.

[_5ysi]

> Yes and no. You're right, a government should provide mainly for its own people. However the stability of the whole world is important for national security and national prosperity.

Again agreed, I think Nixon was the greatest recent president because he opened China and we are all still alive today.

> The main problem is that mass immigration isn't a real solution, Europe and the US/Canada can't support the entire world's population.

Agreed.

> It's because the money isn't generally used as an investment, but rather minimum wage workers from the US/Canada send back money to their families, which merely supplements their income. On a whole the influx of money drives up prices, without contributing much to development.

I'm not sure I see the logic to this. I guess the extra flow of American dollars into the country would make industrial exports more expensive, so perhaps that 1 job in America would cost the developing nation a fraction of a new factory job at home. Not really sure I see the net downside though (from POV of developing nation). Also this sounds like it would cause deflation in the developing nation, not inflation.

> If you look at statistics as well, it's not the countries with the most ex-pats (and I mean as a percentage of population, not in absolute numbers) that are growing the quickest, but rather countries with a stable rule of law which make investment more attractive (and re-investment by those within the country).

Are these two things mutually exclusive and how are they correlated? That's what I was trying to suggest, wondering if expats get to vote.

> The problem is that as capital (and land) gets concentrated in fewer hands, the income earned from capital outpaces the income earned from labour, resulting in lower relative wealth for the labour side of the equation. Thomas Piketty explains this well, and has amassed a seriously impressive set of data to back up all his assertions.

I can't dismiss Piketty's work but his data was all collected in the context of the current economic system, which I think has several flaws that negate overreaching conclusions (IDK if they are his conclusions or media's reporting). Namely the exponential-without-limit monetary inflation of fiat currencies by western governments. Also land is a fixed resource so the appropriate way to fix this is really simple and well established: property taxes. If technology advances to the point that capital is basically free and labor is basically worthless...it doesn't really matter if the ratio stayed the same, IMO. At that point it will just matter how attractive, funny, creative, and good at sports you are.