You know what’s dumb? (probably part 1 of a never-ending series)

One thing fo sho is when people in rich countries complain about the socioeconomic consequences of aging populations, shrinking workforce, etc., and whatever negative consequences they are assumed to bring. While some of these are concerns, a bad thing to do is try to boost fertility rates within the borders of that country, like Singapore[1]. There’s an easy solution[2]: reduce barriers to immigration. There, same effect, but you know it will work. And someone else’s country paid to raise those chumps so you’re already ahead (and the country they come from benefits too). And world poverty will decrease significantly faster.

The reduction of artificial barriers to labor markets would lead to an average increase of 1.4% global GDP for every 1% increase in migration[3]. And this increased GDP will be distributed among a lower number of people (compared to current trends), due to more rapidly decreasing fertility rates of the poor whose incomes rise.

Which means we all get to be richer with less strain on the environment than would otherwise be the case. So shut up about declining population growth and let people have the freedom to choose how large of a family they want[4], and where they want to raise it.





1. The irony is that the reduction in Singapore’s fertility rate, from 6.6 children per woman in 1948 to 1.43 in 1986 (and just 1.26 today), is a large part of why they are now a developed country (or city-state doodle) with a GDP per capita above $40,000. In fact decreasing fertility rates are correlated with increasing income the world over. In a neighborhood of relatively poor countries, Singapore has large scope to increase immigration. And reducing its barriers to immigration has been pretty much the one area of success in boosting population growth.

But Singapore is still doing many stupid things. One example is limiting the number of small “shoebox” apartments developers can build, despite their high demand. This will generally increase the cost of housing for everyone. And given that children are also costly, and assuming they act as “normal” goods (i.e. a downward sloping demand curve, meaning demand increases as income increases), higher housing costs will make having children less affordable, so people will have less children. On that topic, I’d like to apply for the position of director of Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority. I am clearly the most qualified candidate in that I have completed Econ 101.


2. Or it would be easy if people weren’t on average racist/xenophobic assholes who would rather keep their fellow human beings in poverty than interact with people of a different skin color or cultural heritage.


3. Granted this is an average of widely ranging estimates. See this post. But the fact remains that the benefits of reduced barriers to migration are far greater than the benefits to further reductions in the barriers to goods and capital flows across borders.


4. If anyone actually follows this blog they will know that I’ve argued this point against China's "One-Child Policy". It is a fascist intrusion on people’s lives and it's not even effective at reducing the fertility rate in China. 

P.S. I know fascism and communism are philosophical opposites, but the former describes China’s government, political, and economic system much better than the latter.