Community Page
- willwilkinson.net/flybottle Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I think Will was talking about the actually poor (as in starving africans), not the relatively poor americans.
- and, once we reach the limit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_solar_power
- What a useful post here. Very informative for me..TQ friends... Cheers, <a href="http://gardening.the-mnm.info" rel="nofollow">backyard gardening</a>
- <blockquote>I completely disagree with this statement, and the evidence refutes it. You need to explain why the states in our country with the highest obesity rates are also are poorest....
- Will said "without the economies of scale of 'big food'", speaking of our society as a whole, and presumably also the world as a whole, seeing as so much American food is exported...
Jump to original thread »
Inequality; Lant Pritchett is Awesome; the Injustice of Labor Market Restrictions
Started by Will Wilkinson · 9 months ago
My new project for Cato is a paper on how to not get confused when you’re trying to think about inequality. In that context, today’s NYT Magazine focusing on inequality is pure catnip. There are, of course, completely infuriating passages, such as this one, in
... Continue reading »
2 years ago
2 years ago
The problem is numbers -- immigrants would swamp and destroy the economies and social orders of the rich countries. And the continuing success of those wealthy countries is critical to the ultimate lifting out of poverty of those in the developing world. And by ultimate, I don't mean in the sense of 'in the long run we are all dead' since Japan, Korea, China and the smaller 'Asian tigers' have made stunning progress in periods of time shorter than a generation let alone a human lifespan.
I think industrialized countries could take many more immigrants than they do and that this would be a good thing, but unlimited mobility would be a disaster, I'm afraid.
2 years ago
The term "labor mobility" rather than "people mobility" takes the edge off of the radical counter-"Social Justice" Social Justice that you advocate. It has a conservative (as in right wing libertarian) ring to it, implying that immigrants are solely good for the economy, rather than good for an ethic that seeks to apply the same standards of justice for all.
Invoking Rawls helps, but the constant use of "labor mobility" injures the humanist dimension by saddling it with that which is good for the libertarian economist's particular obsession.
1 year ago