The great population growth slowdown

How about letting the markets manage immigration rather than trying to have the government centrally plan it? If we need skilled labor, let firms recruit that, if we need unskilled labor, let them recruit that. Seems that works for most markets. I don't see why it can't work in this market.

 

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree with that on its face. Problem is that with immigration the government has to be involved because of issues with visas and paths to citizenship.

 

The government is involved in just about every market (CBP is Customs and Border Protection handles inspection of all sorts of importation). Being involved in a market doesn't mean the government should act as a central planner. The government inspects phone imports, but we would all find it absurd if the government said "We only accept iPhones here, no Samsungs." Let the market work it out.

 

If only. We are spending tens of billions every year to not have open borders. Because "Conservatives" can't imagine a world in which the government is not a central planner in that market.

 

The other thing to consider here is simply that there is a much larger supply of unskilled workers. It's much more difficult for companies to find skilled labor. I would suspect that the market (well, the legal one anyway) for unskilled labor would be much more domestic in nature for several reasons. Companies would/should be unwilling to import foreign unskilled labor at extra cost over a domestic one because of the market. That would/should be less of an obstacle for skilled labor.

 

Okay, if that hypothesis is true, problem solved then. And we just saved 10s of billions of dollars per year that we currently spend on shoving the government into that decision making.

 

Where are they in that decision making for companies making legal hiring decisions (other than previously mentioned paperwork securing visas and in honest path to citizenship)?

 

They are defining "legal" as meaning only these people, not these other people. They are choosing who gets to be a "legal hire."

 

As does every single nation around the globe. What's the difference? Nations should meter immigration to some extent if for no other reason that there are finite resources within its borders.

 

This was also the argument for mercantilism ("everybody else does it, so we need to"). BTW, the US used to be different in terms of immigration than other countries (it was essentially truly "open borders" until 1924 with the exception of the Chinese Exclusion Act). And it is probably the single biggest factor that led to the growth of the US into a major power.

Markets can handle that as well. The US isn't a closed system without the ability to import resources and we are hardly low on land and other resources that can't be moved. Pricing can handle the distribution of most resources.

 

Forgetting the fact that the quotas were removed from the 1924 law in 1965, things are quite a bit different from then to now in part because we're no longer a system that is primarily based on manufacturing and goods but on services.

The other main issues are twofold and in the first case, "everyone else does it so we should" applies. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was. Opening the borders would allow anyone with nefarious intent in. Unless everyone else were to open their borders too leveling the playing field it makes little sense. Second, it's a major drain on the economy because once again the market for unskilled labor is much higher than skilled labor. The taxes in from new unskilled immigrants won't offset the drain on services and resources the government currently provides. It's a net loss.

Land? You're right, we've got plenty of that. Arable land is the question though. Foodstuffs (and more importantly) water are limited already. Half the country is already in drought conditions and we're plowing over farmland at a record pace (over 2000 acres per day). Roosevelt famously said "a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself". We're already doing that without taking on more people.

 

A change that can be handled by...the market...and that doesn't require government getting involved. Again, if a service-based economy doesn't need workers, the workers will stop showing up.

Well that is factually untrue. The world has never been safer than it is now. Violent death rates worldwide are much lower now than they used to be at just about any time in history.

Even most true open borders advocates would accept a basic security check.

Free market policies don't fail because others are not free market. In fact, it amplifies the relative benefits. As we have seen in the pandemic, emigration from the US isn't too hard, so this isn't even really a reciprocal problem.

This is gibberish, frankly. Not meaning to be disrespectful but "the market for unskilled labor is much higher than skilled labor" literally means nothing from an econ perspective.

An extremely short sighted perspective. My great grandparents were unskilled immigrants. They were poor. Their kids were sent to schools ("drain on services and resources"). Those kids ended up lower middle class. Their kids went to school. Two of those kids ended up Upper Middle Class while the third became true upper class. They had kids who went to school and have largely remained in the upper ends of the income spectrum.

You would toss all that aside because the first generation was a "drain." Super myopic.

Again, the markets decide what happen to farmland. It isn't immigrants. And we grow a ton of food and even pay people to just keep their farmland and not use the food from it. The ultimate in first world problems.

 

Sam Harris | #288 - The End of Global Order


I just finished a pretty fascinating podcast linked above. Demographics was one of many topics discussed. If I had to summarize it all basically expect the world to be much choppier and inconsistent going forward vs pre 2020, but comparatively the US is much better situated with our preferable demographics among other things. The biggest threat for the US is mainly it’s internal politics

Basically on demographics the situation looks so bad for China that any worries of the becoming the primary economic superpower is pretty much dead in the water.


Also interesting listening to both towards the end how horribly screwed Russia is going forward, with a massive intellectual brain train after Ukraine, and crumbling manufacturing capability due to lack of parts etc that could set them back for decades.

 

While the markets are typically much better allocating capital and leading to better outcomes, there are scenarios where a functional government steering and regulating can make a difference. The markets are often the fastest way to fix a problem, like scarcity, or negative externalities, but they aren’t very good at preventing them in the first place.

I do think we should have more immigration, both high skill and low skill. I think the higher skill has more bang for the buck, but the lower skill is needed to offset labor shortages and demographics leading to inflation. However I do think there needs to be a robust process - because of resource issues. We can’t build infrastructure fast enough to adapt to populations growth. While I think the fear of terrorists crossing borders is overblown, all it would take is a couple of incidents for us to change course. We seemed to be resigned to disaffected teens killing kids in schools, but a Muslim terrorism killing a dozen people leads to mass pandemonium.

 

The labor shortage could last for years, major employment firms predict. Here's why | Fortune



Using World Bank projections and analyzing employment trends across several countries, economists for both job sites found the number of people of working age (15 to 65) is set to decline in the coming years. That means hiring will be more difficult and workers will have more leverage over employers.

The decline in people of working age will partly stem from an aging population, the number of deaths exceeding births, and reduced immigration. For example, the U.S. and U.K.’s population growth will be driven solely by net migration. And in the U.K., deaths are projected to exceed births by 2025.

The U.S., U.K., France, and Canada are all projected to see their working-age population decline by more than 3% from 2026 to 2036. Meanwhile, during that same period, Germany is projected to see a decline of more than 7%—driven by its aging population and migration trends that haven’t returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Additionally, the report said Japan’s demographic prospects are “particularly stark,” with its population forecasted to fall from 128 million in 2010 to below 100 million by 2050—and the share of those ages 65 and older will soar.