It would be good to expand on this at some point with data on 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
As thing stand, I'm sure certain people will accept the data as it is now but claim that in say 30 years, all the low IQ, rapey migrants will have developed into model citizens. They'll make a spurious comparisons to Irish or Italian migrants to the USA to show how brilliant they can be long term.
I guess you'd need to show that firstly, the Irish/Italians had much less of a welfare state to leech off relative to MENA types today. The Irish/Italians also may have committed a disproportionate amount of crime at the time, but to nowhere near the same extent as MENAs now.
How do open-border advocates like Caplan respond when confronted with evidence like this? IMHO their strongest argument is that someone who could be making good money at say a tech company in the US is stuck in say Honduras earning next to nothing, if he could move both countries would be better off (remittances). But clearly a lot of immigrants don't fit that profile. The argument would be plausible if the West didn't promote low-IQ immigration with welfare, and actually deported criminals. I have never seen open-border advocates address those issues, but maybe they have?
They will something like "they make ten times as much money", without noting that everything they would buy with that money costs ten times as much and ends up being subsidized by the state. Proximity to the productive itself costs money.
They will say something like "imagine a political system totally different than our own that poofs into existence out of nowhere, it could easily support having a Jim Crow slave caste of worker bots no problem". Sometimes they will point to the Gulf State Petro Dictatorships without acknowledging the obvious flaws with those systems of government, the differing context, or offering any transition path.
The most obvious real world examples of California (which went from Reagan to Newsome and already tried Keyhole Solutions and failed), Detroit (the great migration of blacks from the south which took it from most prosperous city in the world to decay porn), South Africa (where apartheid failed and we got "Kill the Boer"), and ME immigration in Europe.
Those links do not in fact answer Emil's arguments at all.
"wellbeing of low IQ immigrants"
The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty. Any short term gains that could flow to specific low IQ immigrants via their using government to loot the first world pales in comparison to what the first world does for the world in the long run.
Though I think it's important that we not afford too much emotional significance to the wellbeing of these people either. They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
Globalists are in control of the western world and within those societies the populations are effectively dictated by" anti racist" zealots both legislatively and culturally. With white women's pro black and brown male immigrant sentiment being particularly insidious. In both its economic and societal effects the action of Merkel in 2015 should be examined closely. After 6.5 years of the ECBs economic "austerity "she hailed 2 million Muslim males to enter her country trampling through multiple countries some of whom weren't even in the EU. Billions previously witheld were suddenly released for these foreigners. It should have been seen as treachery but in fact it was accepted and even welcomed. It's effectively theft or welfare, and theft of savings from the native population through inflation being permanently higher than interest rates. Biden has effectively copied this times 3.
I have followed your writing with interest. I have a question on intra-national variation. You did the study on Italy that was over a longer time scale, but I suspect European countries are seeing some of the same dynamic geographic variation changes that we are seeing in the US - people in outlying rural areas tend to migrate into denser more developed areas. In the US, the military draft exposed rural populations to the larger world starting about a century ago, and it seems that the brightest and most competent were the most likely to leave for generations. I suspect that the inverse selection that the rural areas have been subject to has significantly affected the local average intelligence. Does fine grained data show this now?
Western immigrants closely follow the Danish curve, but not entirely. If they settle in Denmark, then, their long-term net effect is to slightly harm the Danish economy (at least, compared with the Danes).
Could you expand on this point? If the have a smaller net contribution to taxes than danes. They are still positive for the economy. Do you want to hint at the fact that these westerners will interbreed with Danes and therefore lower IQ/productivity slightly
I meant that in the hypothetical situation where the other immigrants left, they pull the average down slightly as their performance is below the Danes. However, in the context of large numbers of low IQ immigrants, their net effect is positive.
In the USA people often talk about how much GDP is in the urban areas, but it's all obviously company addresses. In theory Baltimore, MD is a GDP powerhouse because of PO Boxes that get tax breaks, but in reality its a decaying black run city where anyone who even works in the city lives in the suburbs/exurbs where governance is sane and commutes in.
We ought to credit GDP to where the people generating it live, not where they "work" (even more insane in the WFH era).
"Going back to immigration, then, you can see that if we look at immigrants who are all working age, they have a very large positive effect of age on their fiscal contributions."
But that only applies to immigrants with a salable talent and willing to work and not live off others.
"People who advocate for open borders in good countries are advocating for making their country worse off. The data are crystal clear on this matter."
Indeed, open borders are as illogical as possible from economic and crime aspects. A very well-controlled border and immigration policy is essential.
Yes, for some countries of origin, it doesn't matter which age distribution they have. They simply aren't productive enough in modern Denmark to be net positive, on average.
In Norway, the bad news came relatively early: the average Somali costs Norwegian taxpayers almost €1 million. The equivalent of a Nobel Prize...
https://www.ssb.no/en/offentlig-sektor/artikler-og-publikasjoner/the-effects-of-more-immigrants-on-public-finances
https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/09/07/181537/hver-somalier-koster-staten-9-millioner-kroner?nr=1
It would be good to expand on this at some point with data on 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
As thing stand, I'm sure certain people will accept the data as it is now but claim that in say 30 years, all the low IQ, rapey migrants will have developed into model citizens. They'll make a spurious comparisons to Irish or Italian migrants to the USA to show how brilliant they can be long term.
I guess you'd need to show that firstly, the Irish/Italians had much less of a welfare state to leech off relative to MENA types today. The Irish/Italians also may have committed a disproportionate amount of crime at the time, but to nowhere near the same extent as MENAs now.
How do open-border advocates like Caplan respond when confronted with evidence like this? IMHO their strongest argument is that someone who could be making good money at say a tech company in the US is stuck in say Honduras earning next to nothing, if he could move both countries would be better off (remittances). But clearly a lot of immigrants don't fit that profile. The argument would be plausible if the West didn't promote low-IQ immigration with welfare, and actually deported criminals. I have never seen open-border advocates address those issues, but maybe they have?
They don't really.
They will something like "they make ten times as much money", without noting that everything they would buy with that money costs ten times as much and ends up being subsidized by the state. Proximity to the productive itself costs money.
They will say something like "imagine a political system totally different than our own that poofs into existence out of nowhere, it could easily support having a Jim Crow slave caste of worker bots no problem". Sometimes they will point to the Gulf State Petro Dictatorships without acknowledging the obvious flaws with those systems of government, the differing context, or offering any transition path.
The most obvious real world examples of California (which went from Reagan to Newsome and already tried Keyhole Solutions and failed), Detroit (the great migration of blacks from the south which took it from most prosperous city in the world to decay porn), South Africa (where apartheid failed and we got "Kill the Boer"), and ME immigration in Europe.
Those links do not in fact answer Emil's arguments at all.
"wellbeing of low IQ immigrants"
The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty. Any short term gains that could flow to specific low IQ immigrants via their using government to loot the first world pales in comparison to what the first world does for the world in the long run.
Though I think it's important that we not afford too much emotional significance to the wellbeing of these people either. They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
You've not rebutted any of Emil's arguments, you've only reproduced the PR copy on the back of other, counter-arguing books.
And has not Western technology (medicine, electricity, cell phones, cars and planes and trains) not reached Africa and India?
Globalists are in control of the western world and within those societies the populations are effectively dictated by" anti racist" zealots both legislatively and culturally. With white women's pro black and brown male immigrant sentiment being particularly insidious. In both its economic and societal effects the action of Merkel in 2015 should be examined closely. After 6.5 years of the ECBs economic "austerity "she hailed 2 million Muslim males to enter her country trampling through multiple countries some of whom weren't even in the EU. Billions previously witheld were suddenly released for these foreigners. It should have been seen as treachery but in fact it was accepted and even welcomed. It's effectively theft or welfare, and theft of savings from the native population through inflation being permanently higher than interest rates. Biden has effectively copied this times 3.
I have followed your writing with interest. I have a question on intra-national variation. You did the study on Italy that was over a longer time scale, but I suspect European countries are seeing some of the same dynamic geographic variation changes that we are seeing in the US - people in outlying rural areas tend to migrate into denser more developed areas. In the US, the military draft exposed rural populations to the larger world starting about a century ago, and it seems that the brightest and most competent were the most likely to leave for generations. I suspect that the inverse selection that the rural areas have been subject to has significantly affected the local average intelligence. Does fine grained data show this now?
Reccomendation:put a link of the source material for USA
Western immigrants closely follow the Danish curve, but not entirely. If they settle in Denmark, then, their long-term net effect is to slightly harm the Danish economy (at least, compared with the Danes).
Could you expand on this point? If the have a smaller net contribution to taxes than danes. They are still positive for the economy. Do you want to hint at the fact that these westerners will interbreed with Danes and therefore lower IQ/productivity slightly
I meant that in the hypothetical situation where the other immigrants left, they pull the average down slightly as their performance is below the Danes. However, in the context of large numbers of low IQ immigrants, their net effect is positive.
I believe Disgenic's concern could be better expressed in terms of GDP per capita.
I don't like GDPpc, so I don't try to talk about that. Massively affected by random companies moving their headquarters and the like.
In the USA people often talk about how much GDP is in the urban areas, but it's all obviously company addresses. In theory Baltimore, MD is a GDP powerhouse because of PO Boxes that get tax breaks, but in reality its a decaying black run city where anyone who even works in the city lives in the suburbs/exurbs where governance is sane and commutes in.
We ought to credit GDP to where the people generating it live, not where they "work" (even more insane in the WFH era).
"Going back to immigration, then, you can see that if we look at immigrants who are all working age, they have a very large positive effect of age on their fiscal contributions."
But that only applies to immigrants with a salable talent and willing to work and not live off others.
"People who advocate for open borders in good countries are advocating for making their country worse off. The data are crystal clear on this matter."
Indeed, open borders are as illogical as possible from economic and crime aspects. A very well-controlled border and immigration policy is essential.
Thanks for a great article with supporting data.
Yes, for some countries of origin, it doesn't matter which age distribution they have. They simply aren't productive enough in modern Denmark to be net positive, on average.