with disastrous consequences for 80% of people.
Would it not be better, then, to reduce the global population to a comfortable 1 billion?
Almost every field of life has become way more competitive over the past 50 yrs
-
with disastrous consequences for 80% of people.
Would it not be better, then, to reduce the global population to a comfortable 1 billion?More than 80% of people live in the dirt-poor countries that finally started immigrating en masse to the West. The competition comes from them, and for them, life is better
-
The biggest mistake the West has made is to open its door to immigration. Industry was clearly in favor of this to lower the cost of labor, but immigration has come to a huge cost to society in terms of pressure on housing, public services, welfare, dilution of culture and traditions, down to literally changing the face and color of the country.
-
It's not only about population. The competitiveness of any contest (if you consider life as a form of contest where you need to win resources by competing with others) mainly depends on the form of mechanism (i.e., the allocation rule). One example: you will live a comfortable life in the US if you are the top 1%; but you still struggle in China even if you are the top 0.1%.
-
The biggest mistake the West has made is to open its door to immigration. Industry was clearly in favor of this to lower the cost of labor, but immigration has come to a huge cost to society in terms of pressure on housing, public services, welfare, dilution of culture and traditions, down to literally changing the face and color of the country.
The injection of cheap labor as well as outsourcing has been deflationary, which allowed for all the money printing since 2008. This sky rocketed asset values and destroyed the middle class, whilst avoiding inflationary money printing (until 2021). The cat cant go back in the bag, people got very rich at the expense of the general population
-
If you restricted immigration the job market would be way easier. It's not even funny.
This comment is why economists need to consider GE and not PE effects. WTF is MIT doing no longer requiring a year of macro.
Econ is basically teaching undergrads. Other research fields are essentially grant funded research. We don't need nearly the amount of phd programs that we have. The GE effects support the original statement. Whether they support other related statements about building a cost-effective research enterprise based on horsetrading immigration access is more debatable.