Free Trade Reduces Immigration \ stacker news ~econ

1359 sats \ 8 comments \ @Undisciplined 1 Mar econ

zaps forwarded to @grayruby (10%)

How's this for a provocative title?

Want Less Immigration? Embrace Free Trade by Ryan McMaken

When capital cannot move to labor, labor will move to capital, and so protectionism acts as an impetus to greater migration. The answer is free trade.

This struck me as a really interesting topic because of the ongoing migrant crisis. No doubt that's also why the article was written.

I was thinking about how the global supply chains were damaged so badly during the pandemic. Some of that started a few years earlier, with Trump's stupid trade wars.

Might that destruction of global supply chains be contributing to the migrant crisis on America's southern border?

view all related items

310 sats \ 2 replies \ @shado_op 2 Mar

Can I offer an opposing view?

As a result, capital could more freely and profitably move to wherever there is a labor "surplus"—that is, where labor is plentiful at wage rates the owners of capital can afford to pay.

This system doesn't just make more sense economically, but sociologically as well.

Not really! Most trade and capital barriers commonplace up to the 70's have gone. Globalisation means Labour is much, much cheaper outside the West, because there are no equivalent labour/environmental laws; plus advantageous exchange rates, which together make it cheap for Western based consumers to buy anything made elsewhere. People are treated like a commodity.

Which equals more profit for global companies as they lay off thousands of workers in the West and move production to China, India and so on. The consequences are easily visible to anyone prepared to open their eyes in any Western post industrial community. Remove the few barriers left and whole areas will simply collapse. (Though I fully understand that long term the world will revolve around the US, India and China, given the economics and demographics).

Free Trade is a great theory but lets be honest about the costs as well as the benefits...

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Mar

The way I think about it is that trade enables people everywhere to focus their energy on their comparative advantages. That reduces the potential benefit of moving to another economy that benefits a more different set of skills.

One way to think about it is that westerners are going to lose those jobs either way (and to more or less the same people), because it is more efficient for the low-skill low-wage workers to do them. The difference between free trade and protectionism is whether the low-skill workers move to the western economies or stay where they are.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @shado_op 2 Mar

"The difference between free trade and protectionism is whether the low-skill workers move to the western economies or stay where they are." Fair point.

41 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby fwd 1 Mar

What did I do to deserve 10% equity in this fine post?

I mean I will take it but I can't zap it now. Or can I?

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 1 Mar

I just decided to start tithing people semi-randomly. You probably can't zap it, since that would create an infinite feedback loop.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby fwd 1 Mar

I used my connections with the deep state to get around the zapping rules and zap it.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 2 Mar

Good post. Wonder if there's empirical evidence for this. Bet there is

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Mar

I'm not aware of any, but you're probably right.