tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post4151560712891941654..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Migration and SustainabilityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-60447338272497742662015-01-04T20:01:13.601-05:002015-01-04T20:01:13.601-05:00The thing you forget about (non managed) immigrati...The thing you forget about (non managed) immigration is it reduces social capital of the working classes, who may end up isolated. Most politician ignore the plight of the poor so they oppose things like this as they don't have enough power to increase redistribution.<br />Redistribution can also create dead weight losses.<br />However, overall agree with your points.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-11507441487829011412015-01-04T19:56:02.331-05:002015-01-04T19:56:02.331-05:00The other thing about gas prices/fuel duty is that...The other thing about gas prices/fuel duty is that it is rent for roads. It allows you to use a certain number of miles on public roads. If road infrastructure is not funded by the users of the roads you need either tolls or pass the cost onto general taxpayers.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-3393040467658115882012-01-27T22:51:32.257-05:002012-01-27T22:51:32.257-05:00Ok, thanks for the explanation!Ok, thanks for the explanation!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-73377546374362824072012-01-27T22:25:04.422-05:002012-01-27T22:25:04.422-05:00Not too far off Al Bartlett's old Arithmetic, ...Not too far off Al Bartlett's old Arithmetic, Population and Energy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrvGDRLT7Adavekinkeadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16765985917515764559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-36165289552186288892012-01-27T22:22:09.343-05:002012-01-27T22:22:09.343-05:00I'd agree with you about economists but disagr...I'd agree with you about economists but disagree with them about what constitutes welfare.<br /><br />GDP is the typical proxy for welfare and immigration from poor to rich countries will almost always show an increase in both average & aggregate GDP for the receiving country (labour being a primary input). In the absence of resource constraints, GDP is a pretty accurate proxy for welfare and thus immigration is a net positive (pre-war immigration to the US is a good example)<br /><br />Under resource constraints however, GDP has a number of significant problems, most notably its treatment of natural resources as an income flow rather than a stock (Stiglitz provides a good summary of the problems here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUaJMNtW6GA) In this case, while immigration may still increase GDP, average welfare will decrease as more people must share the same goods & services (assuming net migration increases can't be offset by efficiency gains).<br /><br />The empiric questions then are a) are we facing resource constraints and b) can we make compensatory efficiency gains. Most scientists would say yes to a) but I'm not sure about b).davekinkeadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16765985917515764559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-81564656756593694332012-01-27T12:21:20.447-05:002012-01-27T12:21:20.447-05:00What's the evidence that poor immigrants to ri...What's the evidence that poor immigrants to rich countries "tend to lower welfare in [those] richer countries"? Most economists that I'm aware of believe the opposite.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-13800134806693735132012-01-26T14:54:12.274-05:002012-01-26T14:54:12.274-05:00See also, The Onion: "Look, One-Third Of The ...See also, <i>The Onion</i>: "<a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/" rel="nofollow">Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This</a>"Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-8951287122833296812012-01-24T17:15:04.786-05:002012-01-24T17:15:04.786-05:00I can see a number of arguments for limiting immig...I can see a number of arguments for limiting immigration for environmental concerns but do think they are quite lacking. For example:<br /><br />1) If states wanted to ensure internal sustainability. A state has finite resources, more immigration puts greater strain on these resources and makes existing policies less sustainable given the finite constraints.<br /><br />This argument is severely weakened by the fact that a) the US seems to have little regard for domestic sustainability and b) many environmental problems are externalised via global trade.<br /><br />2) Compliance with some kind of cap & trade style global agreement that limits emissions to a per capita per state basis (eg the US is entitled to say 10 tonnes of CO2E pp, and third world country X to say 2 tonnes pp). In this case, an migration from lower limit to higher limit country would increase global emissions as more people can emit at higher levels.<br /><br />Again, this line of reasoning is severely weakened by the absence of the US in any kind of global environmental agreements.<br /><br />The problem with welfare based approaches to sustainability is that they seem to commit us to something like Parfit's repugnant conclusion. Global welfare & equality commit us to either more migration from poor to rich countries, or more wealth & technological transfer from rich to poor. Both of which tend to lower welfare in richer countries.<br /><br />Environmental impact is strongly linked to human welfare, both in terms of per capita footprint and increases in population. Given our finite resources, we can either have a) more welfare with fewer people, b) less welfare with more people, or c) have both offset by efficiency improvements. Given the diminishing marginal returns from technology, it sadly looks like we will end up with b)davekinkeadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16765985917515764559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-90570126986844882852012-01-22T16:54:31.372-05:002012-01-22T16:54:31.372-05:00Such concerns can presumably be avoided by, e.g., ...Such concerns can presumably be avoided by, e.g., appropriately designed guest-worker programs.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-13871109297859944442012-01-22T08:31:05.287-05:002012-01-22T08:31:05.287-05:00"So what they're really objecting to is a..."So what they're really objecting to is allowing poor people from dysfunctional countries the opportunity to increase their wealth (and hence consumption) through hard work in a place where their hard work will be better rewarded."<br /><br />You have clearly never heard of benefit tourism.Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05560895825532142303noreply@blogger.com