Caplan is making the argument that opening borders would bring huge economic benefits.

In addition to the economic argument, I think there is a compelling moral argument to opening borders. Why should we deny equal rights (the right to work or move freely) to human beings based on their national origin?

If someone today told you the Jim Crow laws were economically justified in modern America - "we can't allow desegregation, blacks will compete with whites for jobs" - you'd see them as a disgusting, backwards racist. And yet in the US, foreign nationals are denied basic rights that US citizens take for granted. Does anyone believe these laws are actually just, or do we just support unjust laws we (mistakenly) think are to our economic advantage?

I'm buffled. On one hand, HN users love to upvote articles about how evil companies in US lay off local workers for bogus reasons only to replace them with "cheap labour" through H1Bs and outsourcing. On the other hand, this.

Dear average HN reader — I assume you're a software developer in US and often from Bay area. You realize that after this happens, your wage will reduce, may be twofold, right?

Open borders are scary probably because the upside is relatively limited for rich countries, because we are already rich. We can either make ourselves a little richer, or on the downside we can make ourselves a lot poorer, by becoming overcrowded with worldwide economic refugees.

We have no way of knowing what impact completely open borders would have on global GDP, so to throw around predictions like doubling global GDP is just ridiculous. Economies are complex systems and moving around tens to hundreds of millions of people is such a massive change that you can't possibly accurately model what would happen. I doubt the economies of developed countries would react positively to an influx of tens of millions of people.

But the people advocating this usually aren't advocating for truly open borders, they are usually advocating for more IT workers, so they can reduce the costs to their companies.

Let's imagine for a moment what would happen if we allowed just the small subset of unlimited immigration that people are really pushing for--an unlimited number of immigrants who have CS degrees. What do you think would happen to programmer salaries when 10 million new programmers arrive next year?

This whole article is so mindbogglingly dumb.

Under free migration, labor would relocate to more productive regions, massively increasing total production.

He thinks it is a given that open borders would be overall beneficial, because it would "massively increase total production."

So is he totally unaware that the basic commodity of human labor is rapidly diminishing in value?

What massively increases total production, and what drives economic gains is human creativity.

And for whatever reason, creativity, of the world changing sort is concentrated in relatively small areas on the globe.

The knowledge that we're sitting on an ocean of talent should haunt great minds day and night.

What the hell? Where is the evidence of all this talent? Why would these magic immigrants just start demonstrating this talent after they migrated? Why aren't they demonstrating the talent in the countries they are currently in?

The author's main reply to standard immigration boogeymen are keyhole solutions, which are admittedly a pretty cool idea. A keyhole solution is one that tries to address the negatives of a policy exactly, rather than torpedo the entire policy because of a few problems. In the link from the article, suggestions like: if worried about foreigners voting against the interests of current citizens, don't allow foreigners to vote. If worried that a specific market sector will be affected, compensate that sector. Basically: pursue overall improvements, and compensate the losers or guard against specific negatives.

This reminds me of a funny story. Bear with me.

My brother is about to graduate with a physics degree. In an interview with an engineering firm, they asked, "You have a metal that expands/contracts with heat according to such-and-such relationship. How do you keep a room at such-and-such temperature?"

He answered, "Oh, just wire things up such that when the metal does blablabla, it heats the room, and when it does the opposite, turn off the heat."

"Could you explain what you mean by "wire things up?""

"Oh, I don't know. That's an engineering problem."

My brother did not get hired, to everyone's (including his, ha) relief.

Keyhole solutions seem like bullseye-on-head clusterfucks of political engineering. They are (by definition) complex and involve many interest groups. Proponents (correctly, I think) point out that they are designed for that environment, in that they may gain support from all parties, but for different reasons. But is there any guarantee that the bill remains integrated? What about a last minute addendum/removal of a clause? We can't seem to stop SOPA and cousins; is anyone confident that the legislative process is their friend?

I know, I know, it's a political engineering problem, not an economic one. Hence the story about my brother. Sometimes you need an engineer.

Then why can't the talent be leveraged elsewhere? We all know that capital moves around quite easily.

So, what makes some places more effective at turning talent into wealth than others? Could be a lot of things, for sure. But, my guess is that it's mainly 'culture'. And, once all those new people come, that culture is no more.

A more cautious approach would be to open boarders selectively to people who have demonstrated whatever "talent" is deemed to be economically useful.

Of course, many wealthy countries do this already (including the United States).

First you need a government/organization that can scale. How much poverty/discontent/violence exists in the US today? How much are you willing to accept as a possible cost?

I liked the overall thesis but disagree with the example:

> Getting Leonium is a great benefit for mankind, period.

I don't think it is good for humans to live longer. Sure, I'd love it if 80yr olds were as healthy as 50-60yr olds. But I don't want 150yr olds hanging around in any capacity, especially not the ones who own and control 95% of the wealth of the world.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck.

I don't want 2100 to be run by people who believe things discredited or refuted in 1950.

Extended lifespan for sale would carry an onslought of moral and social problems with it. And this is why it's actually a good analogy, but not for the reasons the author brings up.

I'd be fairly certain that if a trillion dollars worth of anything were discovered beneath the Empire State building, much of Manhattan would be gone overnight.

As someone who did the completely normal thing of leaving one country to go work and live in another, I agree completely and can barely understand those who do not.

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." - Law of the Instrument

All Economists are universally indoctrinated into the same basic classical theories of economics. Using inaccurate mathematical models and pseudo-math to map the world as one big series of supply/demand curves.

What's worse. They delude themselves into believing there's a divergence of thought by using Keynes vs Smith as counter-examples. There's no divergence, both schools of thought are minor variations of the same basic fundamental concepts. Economic theory is -- and has been -- stunted for decades by Ivory Tower theorists who gave up on self-reflection decades ago.

Supply/demand do a decent job of mapping basic short-term fiscal trends at the expense of evaluating the impact of long-term trends and/or secondary/tertiary influences.

For example. If immigration limits were eliminated, logic dictates that high skilled labor would migrate en masse to developing countries with a low cost of living. ie maximize profit gains by reducing costs of living.

In reality high-skilled laborers act contrary to Econ theory. The vast majority of individuals who earn enough to cover their costs + future savings are more likely to migrate to western countries where they have a less purchasing power.

Social stability and professional opportunity present a value that transcends the assumptions of traditional Econ theory. It requires a long-term sociological investment (ie measured in centuries) to stabilize a multi-cultural society enough to break down the barriers of tribalism, xenophobia, caste, prejudice, etc.

Economists love to argue that the US recovered from the Great Depression due to the increase in industrialization following WWII. I'd argue that the US became an international super power because of the massive number of high-skilled exiles who migrated the US in search of safety/stability.

Decreasing the limits on immigration will only increase the 'brain drain' from developing countries. Further stunting their growth and competitive standing in the international community.

On the lower-skilled end of the spectrum, people who can't match the high standard of intelligence/talent will be priced out. For instance, I currently live in San Diego not far from the border with Mexico.

Most low-skilled Mexicans that move here either: permanently survive with a lower standard of living (ie for at least a generation); live here temporarily and send money back to their family in Mexico; or commute across the border temporarily for work.

I have a lot of respect those who sacrifice to stay permanently. The rest live a parasitic, transient existence. It's sad to see but I can't really blame them. Mexico is an unsafe, destitute, overpopulated, shithole; run rampant with corruption and extreme economic inequality. Given the choice, I'd probably do the same.

Illegal immigration doesn't hurt the US. We receive an abundance of cheap labor freeing up citizens to pursue higher-skilled professions or work in privileged positions managing low-skilled laborers. It hurts Mexico because -- by subsidizing their failing socio-economic structure -- we're delaying the inevitable watershed effect that would happen when a poverty-stricken populace is absent any alternative.

Instead of addressing the corruption, restructuring the government, and focusing on developing policies that lead to a more safe/stable society; Mexico defaults to a public policy of blaming the US for all of their problems while exporting their poorest/underprivileged underclass as cheap labor to the US.

The most intelligent and/or hardest working of those stay in the US, raise kids who are born naturalized citizens, receive a good education, rise above low-skilled labor, and prosper bringing more long-term benefit to the US overall.

The rest go as the wind blows. When the US economy contracts, opportunities for low-skilled laborers (ie construction, landscaping, etc) are cut and they immigrate back go Mexico.

The hidden impact from looser immigration laws is the potential for overpopulation. It's no good for anybody when a populace increases in size dramatically over a short period of time. Cultural stability depends on some semblance of identity.

I am a software development manager from Europe. Right now we have to turn down projects because we don't have enough people. If we have more people we can start more projects and make more money. My wages will go up as I will have a larger team to manage. The developers in the team already will get more seniority as people come in from overseas "below" most of them. Their wages might go up. Some of them that might not perform as well as the new arrivals might get paid less. Overall, the market might not be as flexible as the labor supply, so we might a reduction in wages over the mid term. This would be a correction in my eyes. I think western workers are overpaid and third world workers are underpaid, so it seems fair to see a natural adjustment here.

I'm pretty critical about the H1-B/L1 systems but my biggest problem with them are the restrictions they place on the visa-holders and the power they give the employer over the employee.

This affects me because I compete in a market where a substantial portion of my colleagues are modern-day indentured servants. This affects my working conditions, compensation and opportunities.

With respect to your point, I think it's valid but I don't think it's as simplistic as more local engineers == less pay. For one thing, we're already competing in a global environment -- software crosses borders easily. For another, the labor pool is never zero sum because more people consume more resources and demand labor. OTOH I don't think unilaterally throwing open American borders would work very well and I think the position of this article is naive and idealistic.

To a point. The cost of living is pretty high and the area very anti-development. People move away from the bay because it's less profitable if you want a family compared to boston, seattle, austin or even new york. The cost of living and interview requirements alone will limit the wage decrease. There are many developers out there already in the USA, who just don't want to move to the bay area.

There are a lot of assumptions there that may or may not be true. Are the incoming immigrants of equal skill to current local workers? If so, why shouldn't a company be able to hire an equally capable worker who is willing to work for a lower salary. On the other hand, will the incoming immigrants want lower salaries than locals? And if they are generally lower skilled, do you want to work for a company that is willing to compromise on output quality?

Really? What if some of these immigrants create more successful startups (like many have done before), generating x new jobs and even some "Netflix"s, paying really high salaries?

It's a complicated topic but there were real world "experiments": In 2004 in Europe:

"By allowing anyone in the eight relatively poor new members of the EU to come and work freely, Britain, Ireland and Sweden are putting these claims to the test. All seventy-five million people in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are now free to move to Britain and work. Since wages in Poland are typically only a fifth of those in Britain, Poles have a big incentive to come and work here. If opponents of immigration are right, Britain should now be deluged with East Europeans and unemployment should be soaring.... But it isn’t. In fact, only 427,000 East Europeans have so far applied to work in Britain (many of whom were already in the country illegally) – and most stay only briefly: net migration from eastern Europe was only 48,000 in 2004.5 Unemployment remains at thirty-year lows, tax receipts are up and jobs that British people no longer want to do are being filled."

-- Philippe Legrain

Not really. You should read:

"The Flood that Never Arrived: German Open Borders Too Late for Polish Workers"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-flood-that-ne...

It says:

"Since May, Polish workers have had the freedom to seek employment in Germany without restrictions. But the expected onslaught of laborers never materialized. Many Polish view jobs in the neighboring country with disdain, with Germans suffering from a reputation for stingy wages and lousy working conditions."

Here you had completely open borders between a poor nation and a rich nation, and most Poles decided to stay home or go to some other country, such as Britain, where they felt more welcome.

So there are many variables at work. It's not a simple invasion of the poor moving into the rich country.

For one, if you take global warming seriously it's a disaster. Each immigrant from a poor to rich country increases their CO2 emissions by about an order of magnitude.

Removing artificial restrictions on a free market system will increase overall productivity. It will certainly increase global GDP to remove barriers to free movement of people.

Imagine that people could NOT move between various states in the United States. Do you think this would improve the GDP of the US? Hey, the SF programmers would no longer need to put up with those pesky developers immigrating from the midwest and reducing their 300K salaries to 140K. However this'd be true for the guy working in the grocery store as well for 120K a year - since he'd also not compete with anyone else and gladly take his share of your 300K salary.

People hate monopolies until they are the monopoly. Then they defend it tooth and nail. Native-born citizens, due to the chance event of where they're born, extract monopoly rents to the detriment of the global GDP.

You're having the belief that there's only a limited number of jobs in the economy. Newcomers don't just take jobs, they create jobs!

> We have no way of knowing what impact completely open borders would have on global GDP

The impact on developed countries from the enlargement of the EU is probably the best "open borders" experiment we can look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_Europe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Un...