29 Comments
Feb 3, 2021Liked by Noah Smith

There is nothing so important as open borders. Biden could take essentially whatever foolish economic actions he wants, but if the borders get opened, none of it will matter.

Also, I think (somehow - they’re so large already) the positive effects of immigration might very well be underrated - because not only do people who move get far higher wages and increase production, governments elsewhere are less able to be expropriative and stupid - cause people can just leave! The East Germanys of the world are nothing without their walls - why must we build it for them?

Expand full comment
Feb 3, 2021Liked by Noah Smith

*****The other big argument you hear against high-skilled immigration is “brain drain”. Why, people ask, should we be selfish and rob the world of their talented people?*****

If America is really in a global competition with China for top dog status (and I'd say it is) then the US should be encouraging as much brain drain as possible from the PRC. The Xi regime isn't the slightest bit concerned when the US blocks talented Chinese researchers from heading to the US. Indeed, they're happy, precisely because brain drain then becomes less of an issue (and also generates antipathy for America among ordinary Chinese). Needless to day, cutting oneself off from a fifth of the global research talent pool probably isn't a good move on the merits, either.

As for the broader issue of brain drain from developing countries: I've always thought it obvious that high income countries should welcome highly educated immigrants with open arms, among other reasons to keep the pressure on poor-governance states to get their acts together. Rich countries aren't doing ordinary folks in countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe a favor when they make it easier for such states to continue to deliver poor results and engage in massive corruption.

Expand full comment

"[R]ecruiting the world’s top talent doesn’t mean we keep out low-skilled immigrants! Don’t think about immigration policy in those zero-sum terms."

Noah has found my personal hobbyhorse. Immigration policy *is* zero-sum in an important sense that advocates often overlook: there's an upper limit to the volume of immigration that public opinion will tolerate. The limit isn't fixed or well-defined--for example, it's probably higher if the immigrant mix is high-skilled than if it's low-skilled--but that's different from saying it doesn't exist.

When you look at it this way, instead of assuming that any level of immigration is feasible and that the goal is to pick the best one, the policy implications change dramatically. Every low-skilled immigrant admitted to the United States effectively excludes one high-skilled immigrant (or perhaps more than one, if you assume that raising the average skill level of immigrants increases the public's tolerance). The "why not do both" meme doesn't apply in this situation, and here's why.

Consider the following policy options:

A. Current level and mix of immigrants;

B. Status quo plus one additional low-skilled migrant;

C. Status quo plus one additional high-skilled migrant;

D. Status quo plus one low-skilled and one high-skilled migrant;

E. Status quo plus two high-skilled migrants.

Noah's arguing that C is preferable to A, which it certainly is if C is politically feasible (in other words, if we're not already maxed out on the public's tolerance for immigration). And it's preferable to B in any case.

To people who say low-skill migrants should be admitted as well, Noah's response is "No problem! D is even better than C!" But D may not be politically feasible even if C is, because it involves a higher total level of immigration. And if we're not maxed out and D is politically feasible, than E will be both feasible and better than D.

I don't mean to overload the thread with dorky decision theory, but this is very important. The benefits of aggregating high-skilled people are indeed enormous and those benefits are the *strongest* argument for excluding immigrants without four-year college degrees. If you want to maximize the volume of legal immigration, that's what has to be done.

Expand full comment

I coach young children and see how powerful role modeling is.

If you have a choice between telling children how to do something and showing them, always choose showing.

I also lead and manage adults, albeit slower on the uptake, they also tend to do as I do, not as I say.

To me- the idea that the strongest predictor of becoming an inventor is knowing inventors, makes intuitive sense, and is probably also true of becoming a soccer player, a waiter, an engineer or whatever.

People need models.

Expand full comment

Seems to me that paper measured the amount of prizes awarded to what amounts to a tiny portion of scientists actually competing in that arena. It does not prove anything about productivity of scientists overall.

To me funding is a much more likely reason for attaining those prices. The cost of a lot of that research is very high.

The US has big scientific institutions with a lot of funding.

Expand full comment

These findings do not accord with any reality I have observed. China leads the US in all STEM research areas and much else besides.

https://i.imgur.com/Pw3H1w8.png

Expand full comment

Another strong case for diversity in thought which is a core but often overlooked component of diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Expand full comment

With place mattering less than ever, there's less reason than ever to do it in the US and pay US salaries to have it done anymore.

Expand full comment

"Brain drain" is the gentrification of immigration takes

Expand full comment

RE: "brain drain"

It's also not a bad way to get an edge over China. As long as more of China's talent stays here than goes back home, we're breaking even on the "educating the competition at our own expense" vs. "bleeding them of talent".

Which means basically every diploma in America should come with a complimentary Green Card. Period.

Expand full comment

Two things:

- Re: Agarwal et. al, is there a reason I see math professionals always selected as the subject of economist immigration studies? Think Matt Yg posted a study about how the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in an influx of highly skilled theoretical mathematicians to the United States. Idk, maybe it's just pure chance...

- Noah, do you plan on doing more posts about what it takes to develop homegrown talent? I agree more talented people coming to America to work, especially on basic research, would be a good thing, but I'd also like to see more 'homegrown' talent. Maybe I've missed it, but my take is this is underreported.

Expand full comment