Maybe most importantly, more people mean more brains. That translates into more innovation followed by more growth. A few years ago, Alec Stapp and Jeremy Neufeld wrote that “Despite making up just 14% of the population, immigrants are responsible for 30% of U.S. patents and 38% of U.S. Nobel Prizes in science. A team of Stanford economists recently estimated that nearly three quarters of all U.S. innovation since 1976 can be attributed to high-skilled immigration.”
We could certainly use many more immigrant doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals, but lower-skilled immigrants are also vital. Let’s not forget that these workers kept the economy going during the pandemic as the computer class worked from home. Immigrants’ children have also been proven to be upwardly mobile. So, we should let them in, too.
The bottom line is that we need more immigrants, and we need them now. If we wait until we’re in the dire straits now suffered by China and Japan, it will be too late.
Also weighing in to support more-open immigration is Wall Street Journal columnist James Freeman. A slice:
Madeline Zavodny, a professor at the University of North Florida and previously an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and also at the Dallas Fed, used U.S. Census data to study the impact of immigrants in metropolitan areas nationwide.
Ms. Zavodny reports:
Metro areas with a higher share of immigrants have more dynamic economies and experience faster growth in the number of jobs created and new business establishments…
Across 248 metro areas, a 1 percentage point higher share of the population composed of the working-age foreign born in 2010 is associated with a 0.58 percentage point higher growth rate in the number of establishments during 2010-2019. Foreign-born workers accounted for up to three-quarters of the growth in business establishments in 248 U.S. metro areas between 2010 and 2019.
Business dynamism means that some jobs and companies also get destroyed–but many more are created and living standards rise as vibrant markets are able to improve goods and services more quickly.
Here’s Christopher Martin on Adam Smith on the rich and the poor.
It’s possible to be deeply sympathetic to Ukraine, which began the conflict as a flawed but relatively free country before it was attacked by its powerful neighbor, and also to worry where this is going. Ukraine has a claim on western support under the terms of the 1994 Budapest memorandum which guaranteed its security in return for nuclear disarmament, and the plan has clearly been to grind Russia down with assistance to Ukraine’s forces. But now that may be matched by support for Russia from China, turning a local war into a battle between alliances and threatening to broaden the conflict.
Art Carden reviews the new documentary Trust Us.
Eric Boehm is correct about Social Security; Paul Krugman is incorrect.
As we explained in a January briefing paper and related Wall Street Journal piece last week, the U.S. formula market remains highly vulnerable to another economic shock because government policies actively discourage dynamism, competition, and resiliency. Tariffs and non‐tariff barriers block imports from almost every country in the world, including those with highly‐competent regulatory regimes (e.g., in Europe, the UK, and New Zealand) and products that American families really want. Extraordinary domestic regulations and restrictive government contracts (via the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)) create a major barrier to new U.S. players and amplify a few large companies’ market power. Combined, these policies created a U.S. market that crumbled when a single factory went offline a year ago and still hasn’t recovered.
Dan Richman tweets: (HT Jay Bhattacharya)
Watching Covidians twist their brain into a pretzel to discredit the Cochrane study is just amazing.
Michael Jackson decries covidians’ cruel battering of children. A slice:
In mid to late March 2020, approximately 150 countries across the globe followed each other lemming-like into lockdown – a feature of which was school closures. Children were ordered to stay at home. Lessons would be given online. There were, however, a few problems with this plan.
Firstly, children and young people were at minimal risk from Covid. The age-stratified risk profile of Covid was already becoming well established at the time of lockdowns, and children and young people were in the lowest risk category. The World Health Organisation formally recognised this as early as April 15, 2020, when they said, ‘Children are not the face of this pandemic…Thankfully, children have been largely spared from the severe symptomatic reactions more common among older people’. Schools weren’t, therefore, closed to benefit children, but to satisfy parents, politicians, media, and unions.
Secondly, lockdowns and school closures would inevitably have a profound effect on children’s health and wellbeing. UNICEF published the following on March 20, 2020: COVID-19: Children at heightened risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence amidst intensifying containment measures. Moreover, years before the pandemic, the strong associations between education and health and life expectancy were well established. Shutting schools for prolonged periods was not only going to be bad for children’s health and wellbeing but might even shorten their lives.
