US needs a strong immigration policy to reverse the long-run decline in growth
To understand the argument, we'd need to get a bit into growth accounting
20 year growth rate just before the pandemic was at its lowest since WWII (black line)
Growth can be decomposed into growth in hours people work (red line) and productivity growth (blue line)
Both components are also at their lowest, but decline in hours growth is the steepest. Why?
A combination of two factors:
(i) the big run-up in women entering the labor force is maturing out
(ii) work force is aging / fertility rate declining. In fact, U.S. fertility rate is now well below replacement
So red line will continue to push growth downwards
This is a problem, especially as the U.S. increasingly relies on deficit-financed spending / investment
A higher growth rate makes it easier to sustain the rising deficit, with interest rate very low
However, a *declining* growth rate will squeeze the arithmetic
The build back better agenda is more likely to be successful if it is accompanied by a robust reversal in immigration policy
Path to citizenship would be an excellent start for immigrants already in the US, but the country also needs a healthy flow of new immigrants every year
(for those who tend to lean right, this can help keep taxes low!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Students wanting to do a PhD in economics are often told that math is important
here's why (and some important caveats) ...
Markets need to balance out on average, e.g. the total purchase of cotton must equal the total production of cotton by farmers.
There are thousands of such markets and they must all balance out! How does this happen?
It is not possible to keep track of all this without resorting to mathematics, which is a tool for imposing rules and logic that nature dictates must hold.
Then there are many practical economic problems that at their core are mathematical riddles.
It is a science that helps us understand how we are all connected in a mutually-reliant ecosystem
e.g. one person's supply is another person's demand ...
economics gives us insights into how we can design this ecosystem so we help each other become better off, or how we can screw things up in a mutually destructive manner
At its finest, economics is about making the sum bigger than its parts
perhaps contrary to some people's perception, some of the deepest insights of economics are about how selfish and individualistic behavior can be destructive for the broader society - precisely because we are all connected
One of the hardest questions is what makes societies change?
"functioning" societies take care of each other, develop trust, tend to work for the common good - and as a result become richer
"mis-functioning" societies seem to do everything in reverse - and as result remain poor
Both types of societies are stable, meaning they can go on like that for long periods of time
The obvious question is how can one change a mis-functioning society into a functioning one? How does change happen at the system level?
Obviously, no single answer here
But by construction, change will be hard - very hard.
Because the reason mis-functioning societies mis-function is that there are groups that are collectively in control, and they benefit from the mis-function
So change requires annoying these dudes, and they don't like that
One broad misconception about growth or development is that growth *requires* capital
That is not accurate: to first approximation, growth *creates* capital
some explanation ...
The most important ingredient, or requirement, for growth is productivity.
If productivity rises, firms and individual create a larger surplus that they can then deploy as capital, or investment, for even greater output.
This is the bottom line to keep in mind
Now, you might ask, but doesn't one need capital for boosting productivity?
Not really
Almost always, the constraints societies face have to do with organization, management, trust, rule of law, experimentation, institutions, innovation etc.