Labor Day and Open Borders

In honor of labor day here are a number of resources on the most pro-labor policy in the world, open borders.

1., the uber-resource and the spearhead of the movement.

2. The Michael Clemens classic, Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk? (pdf) and Clemens interview with Russ Roberts.

3. Why Should We Restrict Immigration? (pdf), excellent Bryan Caplan article.

4. My interview on CBC radio making the case for open borders (starts around 3:18).

5. My article from 2000, Economic and Moral Factors in Favor of Open Immigration.

6. The Open Letter on Immigration from over 500 economists.

Hat tip: Daniel Lin.


'on the most pro-labor policy in the world'

Which, strangely, would be something along the lines of what Bismarck did - but then, he did tend to think about borders only when dealing with redrawing them.

The Iron Chancellor instituted old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. All because he feared that the socialists would gain power if he didn't.

However, ironically, by increasing the welfare of the working class, Bismarck also attracted the approval of Imperial capitalists, as it reduced the flow of labor to the U.S. in the later half of the 19th century - apparently, it seems as if the more attractive wages in the U.S. were balanced by the welfare benefits offered in the German Empire by a grand master of realpolitik.

So maybe it is true - open borders most certainly improved the lot of those workers who were able to brandish the opportunity to leave in the face of those wanting to exploit their labor for profit. And who just happened to have a powerful political party backing them at the same time.

But then, what have social democrats ever done for the working class? Except for terrifying those who aren't working class into reforming society, that is.

You mean except for impoverishing them?

Nothing like being told totally free and unrestricted labor competition is a good thing by someone who works in a subsidized industry with high barriers to entry.

Actually, for higher education that are no visa quotas, and pretty much every scholar worldwide would like to get some of that subsidized paycheck money (American scholar like to think they are poor and miserable, but most of them make quite a good living), so it's quite a competitive worldwide market.

Yes, there are no quotas. The fact that Alex works for the guy who gave him his PhD is just a mysterious coincidence and institutions of higher learning in the US -- those outside of STEM fields -- dont set up a convenient guild like system to ensure their graduates have a cozy job for life.

True. Mostly their degrees get them nothing worthwhile.

Except I'm pretty sure you weren't trying to be serious.

The quotas come if you want to switch to private sector. An Indian can come to get a degree in computer science pretty easily. He can even spend a year working in training. But after that, you first hit the H1B quota, and for permanent residency, a 10+ year wait, during which getting laid off means a ticket home, and switching jobs might mean starting all over again.

I am pretty sure it's easier to make said Indians take a lower pay when they are under those restrictions than if you just handed them a green card on graduation.

I am not sure why all the angst about university professors and labor. Yes, the barriers to entry are among the highest, if not the highest. But what do you want? Don't all recognized professions have educational barriers to entry? Why should it be any different for professors?

WRT unrestricted, global labor competition ... actually this is virtually the case in STEM fields and to varying degrees in the social sciences. Just take a look at graduating Ph.D. classes.

Isn't Alex actually an immigrant? I'm pretty sure he was born in Canada. With open borders we can have more Tabarroks!

I am not sure the barriers to entry to professoring are high. Almost anyone here can try. And there are tons of immigrants who get to try. Too many in my opinion, for EXACTLY the same reason I would consider an immigration tax.

Have you actually been on a collage campus? Every college I've been to was FULL of immigrant faculty.

An empty head serves as an excellent container for other's thoughts.

Still waiting for the Tabarrok link to the Saez data on income inequality, optimal marginal tax rates, etc., etc., etc. Tabarrok -- pro-labor, just so long as he doesn't have to give up any more of his own (hard-earned) cash.

On this Labor Day, guess what is the minimum wage in Germany.

No general minimum wage. Only minimum wages for certain industries. Also as a German I have to note that having labor day on any day but May 1st is capitalist opression.

Seems to be a matter of details, doesn't it; have you been following the German election?

From wiki:
Minimum wage: "None; except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Minimum wage is often set by collective bargaining agreements in other sectors of the economy and enforceable by law[7]
However, the law states that paying a worker an "immoral wage" is illegal. There is no general consensus what constitutes "immoral" payment. One judge at a court in Krefeld, Germany, ruled that a cashier at a supermarket has to earn the equivalent of approximately 7USD per hour. The federal courts in Germany ruled that any wage lower than 75% of the average wage or salary for a specific occupation constitutes illegal payment. However, since there is no well defined legal minimum wage as of February 2013, courts are usually the ones who have the final say and will only rule for individual cases."[46

Here is a list of minimum wages by country:

Quite interesting.

Fun fact: The German unions opposed minimum wage laws until 2005 or so.

"the most pro-labor policy": hold on, "pro-labor" is usually just a euphemism for pro-trade-union. And in the rich countries trade unionists have usually opposed immigration. Are you saying that they misunderstand their own interest?

tongue, meet cheek

Every professor that supports open immigration ought to publicly state that they favor universities being able to recruit faculty from anywhere in the world. Oh, wait, most of them probably do favor that.

This was supposed to be a reply to brian h.'s post but somehow didn't post that way. Miguel's reply, though, pretty well states my point.

The correct comparison would be favoring the end of tenure along with an open market for talent. In the dreaded private sector, those FOB workers can easily displace locals because the locals can be laid off.

Also slash government-backed student loans, so the education establishment will be forced to make tough decisions like other industries.

I don't think the end of tenure is the right analogy. That is a voluntary contract by custom that universities use. They can and do elevate people with different pedigrees to tenure-track. They should do more but they do it the way they do because of custom and market demands and expectations.

I would doubt that open borders advocates would oppose open competition for the tenure-track faculty positions, along with post-doc and graduate student positions as well, all of which already exists. Interestingly, favorable faculty working conditions such as tenure and reasonable pay continue to exist despite competition from immigrants.

Favoring something in theory is different than favoring it in reality. mention eliminating tenure and all of the academics within earshot become ravenous ghouls trying to claw out your eyes. If suddenly native "scholars" are getting tossed out in favor of cheap imports, the academy will become a hotbed of nativist activism making Pat Buchanan look like piker. The same is true of the plaintiffs bar, the media and politics.

The union's interest is their own laborers. However, most laborers world-wide are not in rich countries, let alone their labor unions; hence I think this post is suggesting that euphemism be revised.

Also, may I suggest Lant Pritchett's book "Let Their People Come." Worried about debt in Europe? Let more immigrant workers in and watch the tax base rise instead of fall.

1) How does that tax base do when the immigrant workers themselves grow old? Or is this a clever scheme which requires exponential immigration to pay the pension of your last set of immigrants? Or maybe you're just going to deport them sans entitlements at 65?

2) No negative externalities in housing, schools, crime, and community cohesion then?

3) No possibility of the gains mainly accruing to the migrants and companies, with the low-skill native workers getting it in the neck?

Come now.

The goal is to make the pie bigger. The idea is to expand the economy at all costs and without question, so when more money flows to the top, it's even more money than it would have been.

That is what benefits the people the top. They get to sell more things to more people. They get their wish to keep on importing new people who will work harder for less and most of whom require far more in government benefits than they will ever contribute in taxes.

If American citizen-owners of this country have to sacrifice part of their piece of the pie so that our elite can keep getting richer and we can keep on bringing in new people to take our jobs, well, what's a little self-sacrifice to help others who either have much more than you or who have no right to ask you to sacrifice anything?

Get this guy replaced by his non-union Mexican equivalent.

In reality, open immigrant policy will import low wage unskilled workers from neighboring countries, but only upper middle class skilled workers from distant lands. I do not think that such an outcome is globally optimal.

OK, I'm a liberatarian, and normally I really like Cato, and Caplan. But their position on immigration is so oblivious to the counter-arguments and mendacious in analogy that I'm really wondering if it is done in bad faith. Libertarians are usually very careful with category errors, but Caplan commits one in the opening para and goes on to shift the burden of proof with all the applomb of a collectivist apologist. The initial distribution of citizenships in the world is not "fair"? For Gods sake; Caplan, when did you become concerned about "unfair" distributions rather than processes?

I think what turns my stomach is that he repeatedly refuses to accept there might be any downside, any at all, to immigration. At least his opponents have to decency to credit some gains to some people from immigration, but Caplan suddenly becomes ignorant of basic economics when suggesting it benefits everyone, everywhere, all the time (or would do if everything else in the world had no market restrictions - and the existence of such trifling issues need not distract from the purity of the proposal). I appreciate that he's blind to any non-economic externality too, but here ignoring most other social sciences and evolutionary psych looks less like epistemic humility and more like deliberate avoidance.

For the benefits of Caplan, private citizens can no more grant entry or citizenship to aliens, than private shareholders can issue company stock to their friends. And where else does Caplan think "compensation" to a damaged third party morally justifies expropriation? He rants about eminent domain, but its just fine if your citizenship is devalued by adding 10 million mexicans; they paid compensation to you personally, right? (They didn't? Don't worry - the government will administer the fee on your behalf...)

Citizenship is clearly a good, which Caplan himself acknowledges by suggesting it be charged for, which even libertarians like me think must administered collectively. Otherwise self-determination will count for nothing, and no polity will be immune from entryism by its enemies. I wonder how Mr Caplan would feel if 100 million chinese were to enter under his scheme, and promptly vote him into a nice collectivist-authoritarian state.

You have misread the Caplan article (esp, your second paragraph) the whole point of which is to accept that their might be something to the anti-immigration arguments and then to ask what are the *least costly* and most ethical ways of responding to these problems.

Nope, I'm disputing his first premise that citizenship is not a public good and publically owned. This is the first time I've see Caplan justify a policy purely by an appeal to efficiency. Maybe I've not been paying attention, but the point of being a libertarian is some actions are immoral regardless of effets on overall efficiency. Caplan would scream blue murder if private clubs could not exclude new members according to the contracted wishes of their prior membership, even if such a move "demonstrably" increased the clubs income.

Anyhow, the gains are NOT Pareto efficient. None of his economic points convince me that a signifianct number of native are made worse off or have their rights violated. (I don't like the way he leans on Peri either; that study is a lot more contentious than he implies.) When he refers to part of immigration increasing the value of native land and capital stock I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. He seems to believe the poor have a lot of capital stock, and that increasing demand of basic goods in the presence of supply-side restrictions makes people beter off. Brilliant! Did house prices double? Forget about your soaring mortgage and rents - think how much richer you are in your 3-bed semi! This is so basic a fallacy I'm staggered to find Cato behind it.


To be fair - his "restricted rights " immigration proposal is worthy of addressing. But really, does anyone believe that his proposed solution - forsworn benefits and voting rights for immigrants - would be in any way stable and enforcable a compact once there were several million present? And I still think it would make low skill natives worse off even if efficient overall.

I would think that the same argument would work for eliminating trade barriers to practicing law and medicine and hair dressing and engineering and architecture and while we're at it let's eliminate tenure at universities and let the market decide who is most fit. In fact, I think these reforms should come first.

And, of course, we will no longer need an ID for voting. I mean what's the point? In fact, it's hard to imagine maintaining nation states at all. Do you think that's for the best?

When you convince my buddies in the Republican party, I'll be for it, too.

Something is wrong with your argument, even if I can not name it.

But, on the other hand, when I've seen capital freely flowing across borders, leaving destruction in its wake, I've always wondered why can't labor flow equally freely. Maybe that would cut down on the destruction caused by the capital.

I'm not quite sure what economists are good for.

He is for all your suggestions minus the ones that aren't legislated by a centralish government. Universities want tenured professors. Part of it is so they can pay them less in exchange for the job security. However tenure is legislatively mandated (and I favor opening grants to free competition as much as possible for example- while also wishing we could eliminate government grants) that should be repealed.

"tenure is legislatively mandated"

Can you point me to an example, please? I've never heard this.

Alex wants 'open borders,' not 'no borders,' because in the case of the latter people get to draw their own.

It doesn't matter what Alex wants, it matters what politicians want-just as when JM Keynes wanted deficits in bad tiimes and surpluses in good times.

The open borders crowd is the ultimate in blackboard economics and the they are the court jesters and handmaidens to the political class.

It doesn't matter what Alex wants, it matters what will benefit politicians. They'll pick and choose what helps them stay in power, just as they do when they persistently run the deficits, but never the surpluses advocated by Keynes.

It doesn't matter what Alex wants, it matters what will benefit politicians. They'll pick and choose what helps them stay in power, just as they do when they persistently run the deficits, but never the surpluses advocated by Keynes.

Every argument you will ever see against free immigration is a recycled anti-emancipation argument from c. 1840: "They are too poor, they are too many, they are illiterate, they have no property, they will corrupt our culture, steal our women and chickens..." etc. etc. This issue is not about money or optimal social policy. It is about you.

You know, obviously slavery was a terrible evil that never should have been practiced in the first place, and having been in place, should have been eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity. At the same time, did the non-emancipated actually benefit economically from the emancipation? I have some doubts. I think those arguments have merit. Even more so when considered in respect to voting rights.

"Every argument you will ever see against free immigration is a recycled anti-emancipation argument "

No it's not. How 'bout this. Welfare state. Didn't exist.

There were dozens of times as many slaves as citizens? Huh, I had no idea that was the case. Fascinating history you can learn in comment sections.

The funny thing is, if the people who were anti-emancipation in 1840 visited the US today, they would certainly be 100% convinced they had been proven right on every point. What do we have today? Black poverty, disfunctional black dominated inner cities in places like Detroit, Camden, North Philly,; high black crime rate; high rates of illegitimacy; black athletes and celebrities sleeping with white women; a popular culture that is very heavily influenced by African-American culture (especially music); very few African-Americans represented in the sciences, business or high culture. The emancipators of 1840 would probably be horrified. I assume most of us would not want to go back to 1840 however - the culture has changed and we are products of that changed culture.

A pro-immigration post is here:

And if you thought Caplan's was bad, read that one.

Speaking of glue factories... which countries sent the most horses to glue factories?

The demand for human labor is in permanent decline. Let's open the border to robots, not humans and carriage horses.

Seems to be working quite well in South Africa, eh?

Agreed that "open borders" are the way to go for a variety of reasons ... but talk about "intellectual masturbation"; after all, when will such a policy become politically feasible?

We need economically open borders. National defense is still a thing, although we are not doing it. If there is an opposite, that is closer: internal malignance and international belligerence is more like it, which shouldn't be a surprise if viewed as an out-of-control bureaucracy trying to justify its own existence.

Just imagine all those low IQ Africans coming here if we had open boarders.

Colonialism is far more efficient and benefits far more people.

Seriously, this. One way to get open borders is just to have the US conquer everywhere.

So I recently had the displeasure of interacting with someone whose thoughts on immigration derived primarily from Peter Brimelow. Specifically his book "Alien Nation", which I haven't read. Out of curiosity, has anyone on the "not crazy and/or vaguely racist" side written a response to that book? Or is it just so bad as to not even deserve one?

In an old post I asked Tyler Cowen a question. He gave an embarrassing answer. Lets try with Alex.

Explain again to me, how the immigration of one million pakistanis to USA will not make life a lot harder for poor uneducated Bill in North Carolina. What kind of magic creates the one million jobs for these pakistanis?

And what externalities do you expect from this migration of one million pakistanis? Is it good or bad for Bill?

And another question;
It is argued that immigration will make the country richer.
That is the same thing as saying; more people will make a country richer.
Why then, cant we see a clear pattern in the world. The big countries should be rich, and the small ones shold be poor.
It doesnt matter if you call them immigrants or not - it is all just about having a lot people.

But it is not like that. Scandinavia, Benelux, the Gulf-states, Oceania, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore are all very rich. Germany, France, USA, UK is not doing any better.

"a lot harder for poor uneducated Bill in North Carolina"

I'm quite sure that no one in favor of open borders cares what happens to some guy named Bill in North Carolina (of all the unclever places to find oneself).

"And what externalities do you expect from this migration of one million pakistanis? Is it good or bad for Bill?"

Those in favor of open borders expect that they can insulate themselves from any negative externalities. As for Bill, see above.

"It is argued that immigration will make the country richer. That is the same thing as saying; more people will make a country richer"

Here they (sometimes) do have a point. It's the free rider effect. Immigration brings (presumably) economically productive adults whom the receiving country has not actually had to feed, house or educate. The idea is the souce country makes the investment and the destination country reaps the economic benefit. If you think being a free rider is cool, then.... great!

Immigration is dangerous if the immigrants do not value western culture. In my visits to to America ( I live in India) I have met immigrants who run down western values, but they refuse to return to their own countries where the majority belong to the religion/culture they advocate. Either they should acknowledge the superiority of western values or get out.

"a lot harder for poor uneducated Bill in North Carolina"

I'm quite sure that no one in favor of open borders cares what happens to some guy named Bill in North Carolina (of all the unclever places to find oneself).

"And what externalities do you expect from this migration of one million pakistanis? Is it good or bad for Bill?"

Those in favor of open borders expect that they can insulate themselves from any negative externalities. As for Bill, see above.

"It is argued that immigration will make the country richer. That is the same thing as saying; more people will make a country richer"

Here they (sometimes) do have a point. It's the free rider effect. Immigration brings (presumably) economically productive adults whom the receiving country has not actually had to feed, house or educate. The idea is the souce country makes the investment and the destination country reaps the economic benefit. If you think being a free rider is cool, then.... great!

Alex, babe, I love ya, but you really shouldn't lean too hard on that Michael Clemens paper despite the catchy title promising "trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk." Clemens reaches the absurd conclusion that 3/7 of the world's population ought to migrate (with nothing more than the clothes on their backs) to rich countries-- quadrupling those countries' populations-- to boost world GDP ~20%-to-40% (not "double") [Clemen's numbers, not mine]. He and his boosters then assume that immigrants who outnumber natives 3:1 will have no effect on local politics!

Haven't read Michael Clemens.

But I almost sounds kind of racist; the premise is that the only or at least best way for people in the third world to get rich is to travel to the rich countries to enjoy the wealth that someelse created. Somehow third worlders are assumed unable to create rich societies.

And somehow they dont have any responsibility for creating a decent society, whereas westernes have a moral duty to create societies for everyone.

White people creates societies to get wealthy.
Colored people move to other societies to get wealthy.
The productivity of colored people is considered to be the result of the ability of white people to manage the colored in an efficient way.

boarder security
the boarder isnt secure because its infested with kidnapping, illegal traffic blocking, robbers that call themself guards
securing the boarder= protecting immigrants right to freely travel w/o being blocked, robbed, stolen from, or kidnapped by criminals that call themself boarder guards
americans arnt more moral, better, or less likely to be a terrorist/criminal/kidnapper/robber/thieve/abuser/violent offender, than people in other countries or people that want to immigrate to usa
if americans were on adv at higher risk of being a terrorist, that doesnt =all americans would become terrorists, it would be irrational paranoia, nationalist and illegal to disallow them to live in usa or travel
exclusion zones were set up in u.s for americans of japanese desent, they were trapped in camps, it was racist and resulted from irrational paranoia with the false idea that commiting crime=preventing crime.
people unpermitted by gov to live/work there, are scared to report violence, kidnappings, theft, robberies, and property damagers, for fear of getting in trouble for reporting, makeing everyone less safe by makeing it easier to get away with violence.
time and resources could be better spent going after violent offenders, kidnappers, thieves, and robbers, instead of targeting immigrants.
when time and resources are diverted to target innocents= ignoring criminals=makes us less safe.
people are safest when they are free to travel, be independent, hide, and have protective/defensive means. the only point of safety is to keep your freedom safe. being trapped doesnt=being safe.
-employers pay people that gov doesnt permit to work or live there, less than minimum wage, because the worker keeps it a secret so they wont get in trouble by gov
if gov permited them to work and live there, they wouldnt be scared to demand minimum wage, employers wouldnt prefer to hire people that gov doesnt permit to work or live there
-allowing employers to hire based on skill instead of coercing them to discriminate based on citizenship, allows the most talented employees to be hired, resulting in higher quality services and products
-problem: 100 innocent people in a forced dependency prison camp where their not allowed to be independent or start a business, and 1 job opening.
solution: free the prisoners and allow them to be independent and start business(pressure the farmer to free you). the solution is not for the prisoners to kill eachother over the 1 job opening.
-its alot cheaper, easier, faster to turn a poor person into a worker/surf/producer/utility/labor, than it is to turn a fetus/baby into a worker
offer free birth control and sterilization to those who can afford it. put in more sterilization clinics. boarder guards(travel blockers) should switch jobs to makeing birth control and sterilizing willing patients
-no one should get pregnant as long as there is poor people
-usa is not geographically overpopulated, there is no need to disallow usa population to grow by letting immigrants enter.
poor people use the least resources. rich powerful people do the most pollution and environmental damage. military is #1 polluter/env damager.
renewable energy, home sewage treatment systems, and yards for garden and compost, arnt locally available or allowed for many middle/ lower class people, especially apt renters. many are disallowed to produce sustainable products. established unclean energy and planned obsolescence companies can buy in bulk and sometimes use slave labor to cheapen their prices or buy law-exempt status.
murdering, arresting, and blocking people because there poor or immigrant, is very expensive and unnecessary its free to let them travel and settle and much cheaper to give them some welfare
gov's role
the point of gov is to steal from the rich to give to the poor and protect people's rights, without gov welfare, gov has no right to exist
freedom and welfare
most people dont want to be forced into a gov-dependent low-income welfare life, they prefer to be productive, contribute to society, work a desent job, and be as independent as possible.
most poor immigrants come for better job opportunity and better life, they want to work, most dont come to be on permanent welfare.
people are forced into dependency to get them to obey.
freedom/ leaving them alone lets them produce more then they consume, and become a tax-payer. allowing them to freely live on land and garden costs nothing, reduces there need for welfare.
giving the poor physical health needs, job training, and job opportunity, helps them produce more then otherwise=good return on investment.
tax cuts for producing survival products incentivises job creation.
international public relations and world influence
people arnt going to like you if you: dont let people travel, forcefully seperate family and friends, and dont let refugees in.
if you let people travel and treat them well, they'll tell their friends and family in other countrys how nice you are, you'll be less likely to be attacked, and you'll have more persuasion power.
immigrants are important for language translation for building international relationships
reportedly hispanics vote 70% democrat, and blacks(because blacks are more likely to be poor), and the poor more likely vote democrat, because some republicans are pro-kill the poor and immigrants, pro-close the boarder, and anti-welfare. some democrats are more tolerant of immigrants and give some welfare.
some republicans think if they close the boarders, kill and arrest poor and immigrants, and supress poor and immigrant voters by putting in voter id and discriminatory qualifications, then there wont be poor or immigrants to vote democrat.
if republicans permanently and boldly switch there position to pro efficient non-excessive non-forced-dependency welfare, pro-independence(allow people to freely live off the land), and pro-open boarders, the poor, immigrants, and most people would probably vote republican, gov would probably be about 90-100% republican
stealing/robbing just because you can, doesnt make you the right or legal owner of what you stole
its illegal to deprive/block someone of natural resources and public property just because you can
getting away with crime doesnt= not commiting crime
its wrong and illegal to kill your competition or kill someone just because their more qualified for the job than you
its illegal to trap people on farms/plantations and treat them like cattle just because you can.
each country is a plantation.
everyone has the right to self ownership. its illegal to treat others like your private property.
its illegal and neglect to deprive people natural resources they need to survive, its murder if they die as a result.
its illegal and hypocritical to arrest/block/trap someone just because there is a low chance they might have commited a crime or might become an inconvenience or commit a crime(with out proof of them commiting a crime), when actually there is a higher chance of you commiting a crime against them then there is them commiting a crime against you.
illegal doesnt=immigrant. illegal=illegal action. a human isnt illegal. its not illegal to be a human. certain actions are illegal. its not illegal to immigrate. its illegal to block immigration.
immigrants are travelers. immigrants arnt invaders or trespassers stop alienating immigrants.
everyone has the unalienable right to freely travel on and use natural resources.
its prejudice and hypocritical to discriminate against someone based on what country they were born in
its nationalist to discriminate based on national status, hitler was a nationalist. nazis, kkk, and most racists, white supremacists, and religion persecutors are anti immigration
its ethnicist to discriminate based on ethnicity.
its hypocritical to trap people, at the same time dont allow others to trap you.
its immoral to trap people in war-zone, high crime rate, heavily polluted, desert, or unsustainable/unhabitable/unsurvivable areas.
poorer immigrants on average, move because their desperate and their last environment was so restrictive and dangerous they would probably have died if they didnt move.
most poorer immigrants are asylum seekers/refugees(=person seeking a safe haven/habitable/survivable place to live) and often fleeing severely neglectful conditions
people on average dont like having to leave friends, family, and everything they know to move to a new area where they dont know the language, area, or customs.
open the boarders. legalize immigration

many of those who want to immigrate to us, made products(often for less than minimum wage/slave labor) that americans bought and imported.
many of the products in your home are probably not made in usa.

you must allow people to be healthy and produce more wealth then they consume, so you'll have something to steal
the more you allow them to make, the more you can steal

gov needs to get out of its own way to increase its own revenue by allowing private sector to produce wealth and create jobs so theirs something to steal
supressing growth is counter productive to gov-revenue.
gov needs to quit paying gov-workers to neglect, deprive, and block people from natural resources so they can become independent and produce more than they consume
gov needs to quit limiting its own revenue potential by supressing wealth creation by over taxing wealth producers
gov needs to stop paying criminals/people that prohibit/ block/ disallow wealth creation/production and economic growth, and waste time/resources that could be better spent createing wealth.
gov needs to stop spending on anti-growth and shutting down the economy.
its not a revenue problem, its a spending problem
gov has more than enough revenue to pay for basic health needs, spend on the poor, create good jobs, and invest in pro-growth, it doesnt want to, it instead spends harmfully and wastefully.
raiseing taxes on the rich doesnt=more $ for the poor or more good jobs.
gov pays gov-workers to neglect, abuse, steal from, arrest and fine poor people, punitivly tax good jobs, and disincentivise and disallow good business/wealth creation from starting and expanding.
the more $ you give the beast, the more bad and harmful things it spends it on.

gov should cut all inflationary spending, to stop devaluing the $. gov's inflationary spending is similar to fraudulently spending counterfeit $ + coercion
gov should not spend more than it takes in from taxes.
spending cut= spending less than you did last year/previously.
spending increase= spending more than you did last year/previously
spending cut doesnt= not increasing spending.
spending cut doesnt= cutting a plan to spend in an imaginary future budget
deficit- according to gov= anything gov doesnt have and wants.
debt- when gov refers to debt, its most likely not real debt and is a lie. if it was real debt, the debt collector probably would have stolen from the debtor by now and not continue lending to them.
the "debt" us owes to itself is most likely just inflation, not debt. the suposed "debt" owed to china, might be a bribe (ex heres some $, look away from our human rights abuses).
its illegal to repay debt w stolen $. its illegal for the debt collector to receive repayment they know was stolen only the debtor is legally obliged to repay their own debt.
its illegal to steal non-debtor's property(including all natural resources, land, air, natural water, and public property) to repay a debt.
only a criminal tells a stranger, you owe me $trillions or else.
debt is sometimes refered to anything legally owed. the public is owed a refund/compensation/restitution for gov's lavish tax spending. gov is in debt to the public.

competition/more consumer choice lowers costs, increases quality and quantity.
pvt sector- not gov-subsidized no unfair tax breaks. not law exempt. not allowed to steal to fund its operation. goes out of business if it doesnt provide an affordable quality product/service.
gov-sector- steals to fund its operation, often because its a failed fraudulent criminal inefficient unnecessary operation that no one wants.
gov-sector steals from prvt sector=reduces competition, reduces quality and quantity, increases costs.
crim gov biss votes for and pays politicians, gov, law/policy makers, judges, and cops to guarantee them permanent payment, give them a raise, exempt them from law, and give them to big to fail to big to jail status.
if you dont reward hard work, no one works hard. rewarding failure caused by risky behavior w bailouts and subsidies encourages more failure.

reduce price and increase quality=more customers=more profit=$ value up

shut down/disallow competition=shut down/disallow economic growth and disallow people to produce/manufacture wealth=less customers=less business profit=devalue $=increase price including cost of doing business=reduce quality

disallow people to copy other's product=disallow people to make anything=lower quantity and quality and higher priced products because lower quantity and competition supression=less people can afford to be customer because disallowed to work/produce products to sell, and company spends more on employee and everything=less company profit=less employee=less product to sell and less people can afford to be customer because their unemployed and because higher price=less company profit

costs more to force them to be poor/unproductive then it does to let them produce.
let them produce wealth=lower price=you get richer
time and resources spent on supressing competition(should have been spent on improveing quality to out-compete competition)

gov and "land owners/renting land from gov" disallow wealth production=disallow employment opportunities=poverty=w/o independence or employment some people resort to crime or gov-welfare to live

over reg= disallows people to do almost anything unless they pay an unaffordable fee

robbing people for createing wealth punishes and disincentives them to create wealth
lower taxes (especially on middle class and producers)=more wealth production=more wealth to steal and higher $ value

allow slaves to produce, live, and have access to means of production=more wealth to steal
allow surfs to produce more then they consume, and save for emergencies, charity, education, medical costs, physical disability, and invest in capital/ means of production to produce more and get return on investment
not allowing surfs to produce more then they consume= unhealthy unable to produce at optimal level, die soon. dead slaves cant work
costs more to kill, abuse, neglect, and arrest people than the amount you can obtain from them

parasites/gov/takers must allow its host/tax payers/the people/makers to live and produce more than they consume, so the parasite can collect taxes
parasites that continue to feed on an anemic host will eventually kill the host and die

pay employees more than enough to live so they can continue to produce
pay employees enough to buy the products they make=more customers=more profit

give the poor physical health needs, job training, and job opportunity=large return on investment=more wealth compared to uneducated unhealthy slave

allow surfs to travel/immigrate=increase slave's knowledge=produces higher quality products/services. allows slave to travel to better job to produce better product and better env for cheaper higher quality healthier life. slaves must be allowed to travel between farms/countries to avoid inbreeding and find higher quality mates to produce higher quality offspring.
people that stay in an area know similar knowledge. they must travel to new areas to learn new things unique to new areas. travelers bring new unique knowledge to the area.
transfer innovation and ideas around the world to promote growth

population management:
-not depopulating a sustainable area by murder, capture, eviction, or intimidation=allow production=more producers=more total wealth=lower prices=higher $ value=you get richer because your $ buys more, more to steal
-depopulateing a sustainable area=costs more than it gains. gains nothing. counterproductive.
-trapping an unsustainable area by capture, imprisonment, or intimidation=neglect that can result in murder=poverty=more rape and prostitution w/o birth control=more birth and stds=more babies born w aids, inbreeding, less healthy population
-depopulate an unsustainable area by voluntary evacuation to a sustainable area=allow production=more producers=more total wealth=lower prices=higher $ value=you get richer because your $ buys more, more to steal=good return on investment
-give charity to an unsustainable area=makes that area more sustainable=allow production=more producers=more total wealth=lower prices=higher $ value=you get richer because your $ buys more, more to steal=good return on investment

-depriveing people the chance to produce, then punishing their unproductiveness or poorness caused by you depriveing them the chance to produce, gains nothing, costs more than it gains, counter productive.
-neglecting, murdering, and punishing the poor to try to intimidate the middle class into working is not the easiest fastest most profitable tactic, its counterproductive: -the abusers and abused are wasteing time and resources that could be better spent createing wealth. -people dont need to be intimidated into doing jobs their willing to do for pay. -most people naturally and automatically create wealth because they want to be independent and wealthy, and trade to become wealthier than they would alone. -it disincentives socialization and trade for fear of humans-reducing total wealth.

voluntary sterilization cheaper and faster depopulation than forced sterilization or murder:
-voluntary sterilization: cost: sterilization system and ads. risk: none
-forced sterilization: cost: sterilization system and armed buff enforcement.
risk: people run away, hide, dont voluntarily sterilize for fear of being forced, fight back, stop reporting crime to untrustworthy enforcement, disobey further orders, protest, seek revenge
-murder: cost: armed buff enforcement w/ alot more weapons/amo than forced sterilization.
risk: people run away, hide, fight back, stop reporting crime to untrustworthy enforcement, disobey further orders, protest, seek revenge. env damage=poverty=more rape and prostitution w/o birth control=more birth

letting wild animals/humans live and be free:
cost: none
benefit: create/provide valuable life-saveing and luxury products/services, valuable life-saving organs, increase wealth and knowledge. people are inter-dependent on eachother.
risk: car accident, attack, spread disease, destroy, steal/rob, pollute, eat your garden/livestock/garbage, block traffic

murder(offensive wrongful killing) is wrong because:
-waste of time and resources that could be better spent createing wealth or gaining useful knowledge to learn how to improve quality of life
-counterproductive to your survival, people are interdependent on eachother and need eachother for survival, wealth, knowledge, and higher quality life
results in lower knowledge, wealth, and health of everyone than they would have otherwise had
can lead to dependent people dieing because those who they were dependent on got murdered
can result in lower supply of wealth and higher prices, leading to people dieing because of scarcity or high prices
-make others dislike you, ignore you, exclude you from their property, not help you, not trade with you, that could lead to your death since your interdependent w society
make others want to arrest or kill you
-most people crave and enjoy socialization and friends. murdering people would destroy people that would otherwise be their to socialize with, makeing the person lonely and unhappy
-emotionally feels bad. disgusting disturbing. doesnt make most people feel happy

peacful society: fair trade, charity, independence, interdependence, dependence, friends
-happiness: most people are happy because they dont fear being victimized because the crime rate is very low
people are able to socialize and arnt fearful to socialize because people are friendly and their is freedom of speech
socializing and having friends makes most people happy
-knowledge: people are able to socialize, travel, experiment, and invent, resulting in a smarter society.
people learn more valuable skills faster from others compared to alone. people teach the best of their knowledge to eachother.
-wealth: people are allowed to create wealth and produce w/o fear of being punished for doing so.
-health: people have better health because people are allowed to socialize, invent, and produce, resulting in better health knowledge and health products.
people are allowed to produce wealth and save for their retirement, medical costs, and emergencies, allowing them to afford to take better care of their health.
more people can afford to give to charity and are willing to give to charity, so poor people are taken care of

horrible society: murder, torture, abuse, kidnapping, trapping, robbery, theft, enslavement, forced dependency
-paranoia: victims become paranoid and angry at their offenders, and avoid socialization because their fearful of everyone because their is a higher chance of crime.
offenders become paranoid at everyone because most people hate them or their scared people will find out the crimes they commited. offenders are paranoid at their potential victims because they might defend themself or call reinforcements to arrest or kill the offender. offenders are paranoid at their victims and witness's of the crime for revenge and punishment. offenders are paranoid at their rivals and members of their own gang because their hypocrites. offenders use anger as intimidation or because their sadist.
-retardation: people are disallowed to or are fearful of getting punished for socializing, traveling, access to resources necessary to experiment to learn, invent, and produce
-wealth: people arnt allowed to produce wealth. people arnt allowed to learn or share knowledge that results in not as many and not as high quality products/services.
-health: people's health is worse on average because people arnt allowed to have access to survival needs, and people arnt allowed to create wealth so their is a shortage of necessary health supplies. people cant afford or dont want to give to charity so poor people die.
criminals use murder, abuse, neglect, kidnapping, entrapment, robbery, theft, enslavement, and forced dependency to intimidate witness's to obey or because their sadist.

happy workers perform better, faster, more efficient

good job openings and opportunity to efficient job training reduce crime and illness.
on the job training is prefered. 2nd best is job training as close as possible to the job so business can easier monitor training program
if a business chooses not to train its own employees, it needs to partner with whatever training program it chooses to help ensure employees get trained properly, quickly, and efficiently
people need to be trained for job openings, and not have to go thru irrelevant courses to be able to get hired
business's need to be allowed to hire people based only on the individual's skill-set, physical and mental abilities, experience and knowledge that are necessary for that job
factories and training programs that arnt dependent on customers coming in during the day, should be open 24-7
desk jobs and low or no movement jobs should be moved from bodily able to just as qualified disabled people and if suitable could be turned into at home in-bed jobs.
less travel time=more time and resources can be spent on production. people should live at or as near as possible to work.

Comments for this post are closed