Matt Yglesias’ new One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger is a delightful book. But should you take my word for it? Since I’ve published book-length defenses of both natalism and immigration deregulation, I’m obviously going to smile upon a book that reaches the same conclusions, right?
Truth be told, though, I often dislike books whose conclusions I endorse. You can’t just be right; you have to be right for the right reasons. By this demanding standard, One Billion Americans does well, though there is ample room for improvement. Critical observations:
1. Matt relies heavily on the “national greatness” argument for population growth: The U.S. needs more citizens to remain the world’s dominant power. While I grok the appeal of this argument, I am puzzled by Matt’s lack of enthusiasm for other pro-population premises. Most notably: Life is well worth living, and it’s better if more people enjoy this opportunity. And: Welcoming migrants from poor countries enriches humanity by moving talent from places where it produces little to places where it produces much. More generally: The positive externalities of population are much larger than the negative externalities. To be clear: Matt mentions all of these points, yet strangely only national greatness seems to animate him.
2. On further reflection, national greatness is one of the weakest and most dubious arguments for raising U.S. population. Key question: What is the probability that fervently trying to hold China at number two ends up sparking World War III over the next fifty years? Even if the chance is only 5%, why risk it? Furthermore, if you’re eager to maintain American hegemony, advertising your intent is probably counter-productive; the prudent course is to cloak your geopolitical ambitions in universal and humanitarian garb.
3. Matt curiously neglects “brain drain” and related arguments against increasing immigration to the First World. Should we really be trying to increase our national greatness at the expense of the greatness of all the other nations of the world? Or just trying to increase our national greatness at the expense of China and other heinous dictatorships? Or what?
4. Matt favors universal social programs to encourage fertility across-the-board, but only selective deregulation of immigration. He explicitly opposes open borders: “We shouldn’t just recklessly throw the borders open to just anyone who happens to show up…” This may be good politics, but it’s bad public policy. Why? Simply put: Welcoming immigrants is virtually a free lunch, but incentivizing fertility is very pricey. So the wise course is to welcome immigrants of all skill levels, but target fertility incentives to where they’ll do the most good.
5. What fertility incentives do the most good? Matt wants the government to lavishly fund virtually everything that makes having large families easier. He doesn’t seem interested in research on comparative elasticities of different natalist programs. Nor is he interested in demographics; whose fertility should we try hardest to encourage?
6. Given a finite budget for promoting fertility, however, the natural goal is to raise the fertility of people who are most statistically likely to enrich humanity. This in turn requires us to defy Social Desirability Bias and admit that we can probably help the world a lot more by boosting elite fertility – the fertility of the rich, smart, well-educated, creative, and entrepreneurial. I am well-aware that most people who talk this way are frightening misanthropes. But I’m neither; you emphatically need not be a superstar to live a meaningful and productive life. My point, rather, is that encouraging fertility costs money – and you get more bang for your buck by targeting incentives at the would-be parents whose kids will contribute the most to the world. (Caveat: It might cost more money to induce an elite couple to have an extra child, so it’s conceivable that you get more bang per buck by targeting sub-elites).
7. Matt barely discusses my favorite natalist policy: large non-refundable lump-sum tax credits. By my calculations, these are the Holy Grail of tax policy: In the long-run, they more than fund themselves. Key point: You only get the incentive insofar as you pay taxes in the first place.
8. Here’s the worst paragraph in One Billion Americans:
And over the long haul, universal programs probably do more to help the neediest than microtargeted ones do anyway. The old saying about this is that “programs for the poor become poor programs” – programs that are easily subject to political attack – while universal programs garner stronger support. The political science on this is not entirely unambiguous, but there is enough evidence on it to suggest that there ultimately isn’t a real trade-off between helping the poor and helping everyone.
Consider: Making programs universal easily multiplies their cost by a factor of five or ten. Since even means-tested programs are expensive, Matt is talking about spending many trillions of extra dollars. At minimum, you’d expect him to advocate ten million dollars of research to improve the quality of the “not entirely unambiguous” political science on this question. If there’s a moderate chance we can painlessly save trillions of dollars, wouldn’t it be prudent to explore this possibility?
9. Matt’s cavalier support for universal programs is part of a much larger pattern: He favors massively more government spending on virtually everything. Frankly, he’s a parody of a big-spender – even when he freely admits that government has an awful track record for waste. Thus, after explaining that public transportation costs far more to build in the U.S. than in Europe, he still calls for bigger budgets:
The goal is to spend a little more and in exchange get a lot more – but still with plenty of jobs for everyone. In France, they use a twelve-person crew on a tunnel-boring machine (TBM), while America uses twenty-five. We don’t need to fire half the TBM operators; what we should do is hire 50 percent more but insist on building three times as many tunnels.
For Matt, apparently, spending 50% more is spending “a little more”!
10. Matt correctly explains that according to National Academy of Science estimates, the average immigrant to the U.S. is a net fiscal positive. And he toys with the idea of imposing surtaxes on low-skilled immigrants to sweeten the calculation. But if we followed even half of Matt’s spending advice, steep surtaxes would be required to prevent immigrants from becoming big net fiscal negatives.
11. If I were an environmentalist, I would be underwhelmed by Matt’s attempt to assuage my fears:
[W]e can’t just ask people to give up the fruits of prosperity. Nor does it make sense to try to minimize the number of prosperous people. What the world needs, climatewise, is to develop and deploy technologies that will make prosperous lifestyles sustainable. If that can be done, the number of prosperous people is irrelevant.
Any alarmist worth his salt will object, “Let’s hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Even if cheap, green technologies become available, dysfunctional policies could well prevent them from being deployed. So let’s hedge our bets by continuing our efforts to restrain population growth – at least until Matt’s techno-topia arrives.”
12. Lest you get the wrong impression, Matt has excellent discussions of…
a. How absurdly low U.S. population density is, even ignoring Alaska and the Rockies.
b. The evils – and anti-natalist side effects – of helicopter parenting.
c. Deregulating childcare.
d. Mariel boatlift revisionism and anti-revisionism.
e. The JTWBDAAIOACDT argument (my label, not Matt’s).
f. How much of the damage of climate change ultimately stems from immigration restrictions.
g. The theory and practice of moving the federal government to the Midwest.
h. The ins and outs of housing deregulation
i. Peakload pricing.
j. America’s absurdly high infrastructure costs.
13. The only major category of spending that Matt wants to cut is defense. A great choice – but hard to reconcile with his national greatness agenda. If he were really serious about “standing up to China,” you’d expect him to copy-and-paste his position on tunnel-boring machines: Let’s have 50% more military – and do three times as much with it.
Overall, this is the best big-picture progressive policy book I can remember. That said, One Billion Americans’ only stereotypically progressive feature is its commitment to profligacy. Everything else should appeal to rationalists of across the spectrum.
READER COMMENTS
Philo
Oct 15 2020 at 10:50am
Your foray into eugenics (“we can probably help the world a lot more by boosting elite fertility”) will be widely reviled. A potentially more popular argument for the policies you favor would present the issue as one of equality rather than as a matter of the utilitarian “greatest good’. Elite fertility is lower than non-elite fertility; it seems that public policy is discouraging elite parenthood more than non-elite. So we should alter our mix of public policies *to restore equity*. (Admittedly, equality *for elites* will have less appeal than other equality arguments!)
Thomas Hutcheson
Oct 15 2020 at 11:13am
Rather than “national greatness” I’d prefer to get to the same conclusions by pointing out that the rising China/US GDP ratio makes it more likely that more people will conclude that an illiberal polity “works’ better than a liberal system. And our own liberties are more secure in a world that admires rather than despises our system.
bomag
Oct 16 2020 at 7:20am
Good point, but the guy down the hall likes to hector me on how China is the <i>real</i> liberal state, while the US is a rising totalitarian failed state.
robc
Oct 15 2020 at 11:17am
Re: #7, it combines well with #6 although you didn’t mention it, as the non-refundable tax credit makes it more likely to target the “elites”.
Instead of a tax credit, I would prefer creating a standard deduction per child, make it equivalent to the adult standard deduction even. This also has the advantage of cutting more people out of itemizing, leading to eliminating it sooner.
robc
Oct 15 2020 at 11:24am
RE: 12g.
How about keeping the Prez and Congress in DC, redrawing the DC borders so the White House is the only residence in DC, and returning the rest to MD. Then, move each department to a different state. The midwest is fine, but dont want to concentrate them.
Put the Dept of Ag in NYC. Put the SEC in Iowa. I could come up with good locations for the rest if I think of it. Treasury in North Dakota might be nice.
superdestroyer
Oct 15 2020 at 11:48am
Why can’t economist understand that, under open borders, immigration will continue into the U.S. at a very high rate until the standard of living in the U.S. is not different than most of the third world.
Any policy that says the way to finally limit immigration is to lower the standard of living is not only wrong, it is insane.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 12:03pm
Because neither theory nor evidence supports that claim.
Jonathan S
Oct 15 2020 at 8:59pm
You are assuming a zero-sum economy. If this were true, population growth (of any kind) would lead to poverty. In reality, population growth correlates with economic growth per capita.
bomag
Oct 17 2020 at 3:27am
Well, I’m sure this has been hashed on mightily, but I suspect one can have too much of a good thing.
Phil H
Oct 15 2020 at 11:28pm
In theory the first paragraph of superdestroyer’s comment is right. The error lies in thinking that this means quality of life will go down.
Miguel Madeira
Oct 16 2020 at 10:02am
Why can’t economist understand that, under open borders, immigration will continue into the Germany at a very high rate until the standard of living in the Germany is not different than in Portugal and other relativly poor countries of EU.
or
Why can’t economist understand that, under open borders, migration will continue into New Yorkat a very high rate until the standard of living in the Ney York is not different than in Mississipi.
Theoretical make sense, but I think that both are empirically wrong.
superdestroyer
Oct 16 2020 at 2:26pm
Look at the cost of real estate in New York. Look at the issues with finding a private school for one’s children. Look at the cost of living. The pay in New York is great but when 25% of those living in Williamsburg need a subsidy from their parents, then yes, New York is affected by increasing prices and a lower standard of living.
RPLong
Oct 15 2020 at 12:14pm
On your point #6, isn’t it hardest to boost elite fertility, relative to every other segment of society? I’d expect them to have low marginal utility of stipends or tax cuts. What other kinds of social programs could be used to boost elite fertility? Probably not much.
On the other hand, such social programs might plausibly do a good job of boosting the fertility of next-best group, under the elites. So, they might still be a good way to boost fertility among “the right people.”
Of course, I don’t favor social fertility programs. I rather favor removing taxes and restrictions that disincentivize people to have kids. I don’t know of any off-hand, but surely there are some.
robc
Oct 15 2020 at 12:22pm
I can think of one, although it is more general. If we reduce tax/regulations enough, some people won’t feel the need to have a two income household. Some will still want it, but in some households, the 2nd income is more out of “necessity”. If that need was removed via lower taxes, then there would be more single income households with two adults and probably more kids as a result.
RPLong
Oct 15 2020 at 12:48pm
Absolutely. Good point.
mark
Oct 16 2020 at 1:09pm
Not really. Obviously, it is much easier nowadays to feed a family of four (or fourteen) on 1 full-time-income than ever before (Me: a father of 4) . Surely easier than in 1960. – What changed: it is much easier for both partners to have a nice paying work and enjoy those riches without any sweet little monsters around. The opportunity cost of having kid(s) – i.e. the cost of giving up at least one career – has risen considerably! Less taxes in general will not raise birth rates any more than a 20% rise in incomes would. Much less (income) tax for parents might change things. – I am with Bryan, I guess. 😉
superdestroyer
Oct 15 2020 at 1:36pm
Then economist are arguing that immigration is the one variable that never reaches an equilibrium. If the living standards of the U.S. remain high versus the rest of central and south America, eventually almost all of the will move to the U.S. Eventually there has to be something that kicks in and discourages people from coming to the U.S. And the mechanism for discouraging immigration to the U.S. will be a lowering of the standard of living. What else can it be?
RPLong
Oct 15 2020 at 2:47pm
I have one likely candidate: Low cost of living.
If I were to invest my nest egg in a four-plex Costa Rican villa, I could enjoy free rent, low-cost health care, delicious fresh food, and a pleasant environment for pennies on the dollar of what I’d have to pay to enjoy that kind of lifestyle in Florida or Hawaii. The prospect is so attractive to me that I am seriously considering it, and I’m not the only one. Casually browsing the internet for expatriate communities in Central America yield many, many attractive results. And if you’ve ever taken a trip south to see them for yourself, you know they’re not just glossy marketing images.
So, as the relatively poor make their way North to increase their incomes, the relatively wealthy make their way South to improve their quality of life. And make no mistake, life is really good in Central America once you’ve crossed a certain income threshold.
superdestroyer
Oct 16 2020 at 9:40am
But a very high cost of living does mean a lower standard of living. NYC has high pay but much higher real estate prices. That means people do not marry as much, do not purchase homes, and do not have children. Aren’t some of those the definition of a lower standard of living?
RPLong
Oct 16 2020 at 11:57am
Maybe I’m not following your point. It sounds like we agree. I live in Texas; you’d have to pay me quite a lot of money to move to a place like New York City! I have a higher standard of living here. The higher cost of living already discourages me from moving to NYC. Surely the same is true of someone in Managua considering a move to San Antonio.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 4:52pm
Why? Again, neither theory nor evidence supports the claim.
Remember, equilibrium is where MC=MB. “Marginal” is key there. Assuming zero transaction costs, immigrants would only come until the marginal immigrant would not benefit. Those who would benefit would come.
No other market works with lowering quality (in fact, typically we teach how equilibrium is achieved by assuming only prices, not quality, changes). Equilibrium in the apple market is not achieved through lowering quality.
Dylan
Oct 15 2020 at 10:38pm
Not that I think this is particularly germane to the immigration question, but I’ll note this isn’t really true. Clayton Christensen pointed out in the Innovator’s Dilemma how lowering both quality and price tend to be how incumbent markets get disrupted. You take a stagnant market with high margins and build an inferior product at much lower prices, take market share, improve quality, take more market share, and continue the process. I’ll note that many times you never get back to the original quality though. Skype is the classic example, when it first came out the quality was pretty poor, but free international calling was a pretty alluring draw. Quality eventually improved through faster and better internet, but even today VOIP (or even cell calls) are not nearly as good as a POTS phone from 30 years ago.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 10:54pm
Of course, a dynamic model like you suggest would take into account those changes. Rather, I am just discussing the model this guy superdestoryer is trying to invoke.
superdestroyer
Oct 16 2020 at 9:46am
I doubt that many people would argue that the classified ads on Craigslist are better than previous versions but when the price point is zero, who complains?
I would also believe that the middle class people moving out of California would differ with economist opinions that immigrants do not lower the quality of life. The U.S. has been dealing with white flight and demographic shifts since before WWII due to the lower of the quality of life by newcomers.
Jon Murphy
Oct 16 2020 at 10:28am
Given immigration has been hugely restricted during the time period you mention (actually hitting historic lows), your timing doesn’t make sense.
bomag
Oct 16 2020 at 9:57pm
Internal immigration of southern Blacks to northern cities.
JFA
Oct 15 2020 at 12:35pm
I assume Matt discusses this in his book, but lots of countries with lots of the freebies he wants for parents have equivalent or lower total fertility rate than the US. Might that mean that TFR would be lower in those countries if not for all the parental freebies… maybe… but it should give advocates pause if their goal is to increase fertility (my guess is that Matt just likes “free” stuff that someone else has to pay for and he has just given increasing fertility as one of the reasons for these policies as a veneer).
Michael Stack
Oct 15 2020 at 12:45pm
Talking about fertility and getting more ‘bang’ for your buck – smart policy proposals indeed!
Mark Z
Oct 15 2020 at 3:14pm
Yglesias says: ” what we should do is hire 50 percent more but insist on building three times as many tunnels.”
If it’s that simple, then start by getting the same number of workers to do twice as much work. That should be our ultimatum to people who want larger government (especially ‘state capacity libertarians’). If you want anyone to support buying more government, first you have to demonstrate that you can increase returns to government at current levels. Historically, just spending more and insisting we can simultaneously increase efficency has had the opposite effect, as one would expect: if the Tunneling Agency knows you’re going to keep throwing money at it, regardless of how poorly it’s job doing now, it has little incentive to do its job well.
Also, on the question of universal social programs: I think you (Bryan) may actually understate the problem. Presumably Yglesias wants these funded by heavily progressive taxes. The increase tax bill for rich people will far outweigh whatever universal benefits they get access to. Since high tax rates tend to deter having more children, his favored policies would likely reduce fertility among the comparatively well off, and (taboo as it is to acknowledge) among the comparatively intelligent and productive.
Julian
Oct 15 2020 at 4:36pm
Matthew Yglesias’ essence and inclination always struck me as libertarian, which, obviously, seems incongruent with him being one of the top guys at openly-progressive Vox. However, if you read the guy closely enough, you sense that what he’s actually trying to do is push American progressivism towards a more libertarian direction — at least, regulation-wise (but not spending-wise). “Liberaltarian”, basically.
But yeah, the guy’s sometimes a tough nut to crack. You can see he’s pro-markets in his heart of hearts, but at the same time, churns out articles fretting on how the next conservative justice might end up striking down business regulation.
As to the “national greatness”, that’s easy: he’s trying to sell immigration to conservatives! I picked up on it right away when he was doing that interview with Ben Shapiro. And I don’t blame him for it, by the way; if you have an argument that could get a substantially higher chunk of the population to sign on to your preferred policy, then why not use it? Kind of like when Clinton used to promise “fewer Mexicans” when selling NAFTA to conservatives.
nobody.really
Oct 15 2020 at 5:07pm
See? This is why the unions complain about Caplan. Where labor is concerned, he’s unwilling to pay enough to get American women to participate; instead, he just wants to outsource it to the Third World.
As any tax economist would tell you, children are income—that is, a product of labor. Getting people to labor can be difficult, so it makes sense to remind them that they can pursue certain activities for fun AND profit. But even if you can persuade a couple of these facts, they may yet discover to their chagrin what every tax accountant already knows: some things may be easy to realize, yet hard to conceive.
Steve
Oct 15 2020 at 8:12pm
I used to engage in these interminable debates about the economics of immigration, but now I lack the energy to do so. It’s all so tiresome.
The drunk man looks for his keys under the lamppost because that’s where the light is. In the same way, people debate immigration on economic grounds because that’s where the Overton Window is. Deep down, few of them are motivated primarily by wages or GDP.
Human beings are not interchangeable; they are separated by language, culture, religion, and more. There are different kinds of people in the world. They exist as individuals but also as members of groups, and it is moral for them to want to continue to exist as groups.
Bryan really is misanthropic, but not for the reason he suggests. Group identity is part of what makes us human. It is a far more fundamental part of us than, say, the desire for liberty or love of economic growth. To reject thumos is simply to reject human beings as they are.
In my years of following this debate, I’ve observed that most intense proponents of mass immigration are motivated less by GDP or altruism than by antipathy towards the people whom immigration will demographically replace.
Tom
Oct 15 2020 at 9:03pm
Perhaps, but I’ve noticed that the people who most cleave to the importance of group identity often have a very clear idea of what group identities “count”.
Interesting to note that when I asked my kids (in their early 20’s) what group identities they associated themselves with, national, religious and racial identities weren’t even on the list.
And the choices of who they hang out with (virtually, of course) seems to fit their answers.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 9:17pm
I’m about 10 years older than your kids and the experience is largely the same. National identities don’t matter much. Racial seem to matter more, especially these days
bomag
Oct 16 2020 at 7:59am
…what group identities they associated themselves with, national, religious and racial identities weren’t even on the list
I look around and see those with national, religious, and racial identities punching above their weight in the various competitions of life. I’d suggest that people in such groups are the ones inheriting the future; autonomous Libertarian man, not so much.
Tom
Oct 16 2020 at 6:19pm
I’m not certain what you mean “by punching above their weight”. My experience is that cleaving to traditional identities correlates inversely with education, and education has been very highly correlated with economic success.
However, if you are talking about number of children (“ones inheriting the future”), then I’d certainly agree, although I have no data for that either.
bomag
Oct 17 2020 at 3:41pm
This; seems the educated, rootless cosmopolitan is quite barren.
Also, I was observing such as the Plain people (Amish, etc.); Hasidim; Subcon Indians and their supportive ethnic networks; African-Americans with their group demands for concessions; Hispanics and their cultivation of a group identity; etc.
From my observation, such a cultivated group identity enables an individual to exceed what he could have done otherwise as an autonomous individual picking his way through a modern economy.
Tom
Oct 18 2020 at 10:25am
At least in my observations, such identities rarely last more than a generation unless (and this is a big unless), society isn’t prepared to allow integration. I may be mistaken (I’m not part of the community), but in my youth, the decline of anti-semitism seemed to be matched with alarm from older folks that young people were de-emphasizing their Jewish identity.
In don’t think group identities based on appearance survive a truly cosmopolitan society. I strongly suspect that the minor gains from group identity are completely swamped by the gains from being fully integrated into all aspects of society, and thus most will unconsciously choose to leave behind group identity when given the choice, much to the previous generations sadness.
Mactoul
Oct 16 2020 at 1:21am
group identity is simply political nature of man whereby mankind is constituted into particular, self-ruling, morally authoritative units which may be variously called tribes, nations etc.
The political nature defines separation of neighbors and strangers
Libertarians dislike the moral authority aspect. Thus, he makes each man a stranger onto other man.
Progressives dislike the particularity aspect. They would have each man a neighbor onto all other men.
Jose Pablo
Oct 16 2020 at 6:01pm
What does “countries” (which are the units defining “immigration policy”) and “groups of people of the same language, culture, religion,” have to do?
Tenured professors from all over the world are more of a “group” (meaning a bunch of people an individual can get psychological benefits hanging out with) than tenured professors from a posh college from the east (pick up a name) hanging out with people from remote isolated farms from a mountainous state (pick up a name).
And maybe is “moral for some people to want to continue to exist as groups”. But, just the same, some people prefer to mingle with other groups and expand their world visions. And it might be moral too, I guess, for this people to want to stop existing as a group and start existing as an individual (which can be very rewarding).
This “some-people-want“ kind of reasoning does not get you anywhere and faces pretty soon the Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Cartesian Theatrics
Oct 16 2020 at 12:38am
I also thought it was a pretty well argued thesis, but the absolute commitment to military-grade helicopter money was really off-putting. A lot of these commentators don’t even care to run the basic maths of their programs. Second, I’m completely opposed to his view on child rearing. He seems to want the state to basically raise our kids, which surprises me considering what’s happening in schools today. I figured he would propose vouchers at least..
Boonton
Oct 16 2020 at 12:04pm
My understanding of the EU is that it essentially has open borders but closed social systems. If you are from Greece, you can go to the UK but you apply for Greek welfare/unemployment/whatever if you need it. Greek unemployment isn’t a lot and it doesn’t go very far in the UK? Ahhh well. This setup seems to imply there is no tradeoff between entitlements and open borders. A Greek person could go to the UK if he’s willing to live at a much reduced standard of living because Greek welfare is pathetic or if he has the capacity to be very successful and not require any programs. Libertarian minded folks who think open borders are a surefire way to force every country to go full Ayn Rand, IMO, are missing things.
Jens
Oct 19 2020 at 5:53am
UK is a somewhat difficult example of an EU country.
But it is basically the case that the social systems in the EU countries have certain entry barriers. There is also free movement of labour. I.e. every EU citizen can take a job anywhere in the EU. If he moves to another country and meets the entry requirements for the corresponding social security system there, he will receive the systems benefits.
So let’s say a Pole works in Germany and pays unemployment insurance contributions for a few months, then he gets unemployment benefits (and the amount rises for a while, because pas contributions are relevant for the sum). He is health-insured in Germany from the first moment he pays health insurance contributions, because that’s the way the health insurance system works. And he is only entitled to pension insurance after 5 years of contributions, because that’s the way the public pension insurance system works. And of course there are some people who try to get past all of these systems, they don’t have any claims ^^. It just depends.
Jens
Oct 19 2020 at 6:04am
And of course different EU nationalities are not a criterion for denying someone access to a social security system. All EU citizens must be treated equally, in the light of claims and obligations, otherwise there will be very, very big hustle and bustle in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Jose Pablo
Oct 16 2020 at 4:45pm
The government paying people for having more kids in order for this very same government to command a bigger “herd” from which extracting more taxes and more bodies to throw in the trenches in case of war?
It does sound awful.
Anyway USA government should be very well positioned for sucessfully pursuing this idea. The country has been breeding cattle for centuries.
Jose Pablo
Oct 16 2020 at 5:13pm
The government is not paying anything to anybody. It is extracting money from some people and redistributing a percentage of this money (after the leaks in the “leaking bucket”) to some other people (and most of the time, at least partially, to the very same people it extracted money from … it is just a crazy nonsense).
Increasing the incentive to the optimal “breeders” means extracting money from other people, very likely “disincentivizing” this people “breeding activities”.
So, it is not only a matter of the “breeding elasticity and quality” of the people getting the money but also of the “breading elasticity and quality”of the people from whom the money is taken.
The “net increase” in fertility would be the difference between the fertility increasing effect on the recipients of money and the, very likely, decreasing fertility effect on the “suckers” from whom this very same money is extracted.
The probabilities of the bureaucrats getting this right, are exactly “zero”. The probability of this policies having unintended consequences are precisely “one”.
I think it would be much easier (and cheaper) just to let in all the people in the world with a master, a PhD, an special ability plus all the brilliant students that put a great value in getting an American green card.
This people are legion, they pay a lot of taxes and make cocktails much more fun. An all the “incentive” they need is a piece of paper that is free to produce and can, even, be sold to very interesting people for an interesting amount of money.
bomag
Oct 17 2020 at 3:48pm
Indulge some trolling:
Jose Pablo
Oct 18 2020 at 4:27pm
International tenured professors and PhDs are much less prone to be used as meat in the trenches. It is well known they are pretty bad fighters when it gets physical (some of them do ok verbally).
On top of that, there is a very significant difference between doing something and refraining from doing something. Acting and refraining to act belong to complete different categories both from a moral and a practical perspective (“Primum non nocere” as an example). Particularly (and famously) so when government actions are involved.
In any case your comment illustrates the economic nonsense of spending money in fertility incentives (with the required tax increase on other breeders) when there is an alternative solution that provides a better result while bringing money to the government coffers. You just get a better AND cheaper “product” (actually you are paid to take the better product).
Alex
Oct 17 2020 at 11:37pm
More population is a great way.of paying the national.debt. More people=less.debt per capita.
Also, much of government spending has economies of scale, so more people.means less spending per capita for the same service.
Ron Browning
Oct 18 2020 at 8:19am
The “open borders” discussion is needlessly confused over semantics and Bryan probably makes things worse in point number 4. He quotes Matt…. “We shouldn’t just recklessly throw the borders open to just anyone who happens to show up…”
And responds without proper clarification.
I am not aware of any responsible pro “open borders” advocate espousing the view that a convicted felon with a communicable disease and zero financial wherewithal who wanders up to a US border should be welcomed in. Matt’s statement does not seem to embody this understanding and should be corrected each and every times that it shows itself. Much of the disagreement between people has to do with a totally different understanding of what “open borders “ actually means.
Comments are closed.