While politicians may not acknowledge tradeoffs willingly, economic tradeoffs are an explicit part of many ballot propositions in subnational policymaking. If a US state or city wants to raise taxes to fund some kind of integration or immigrant support program, they sometimes put it to the voters.
> "telling only half the story year after year eventually backfires, because people experiencing the downside of tradeoffs are not blind. Ignoring their experience doesn’t make it disappear; it just makes the messenger look dishonest..."
In general, brain drain research is also not convincing, specially if you buy into Garett Jones/Pseudoerasmsu like arguments. It seems like that research wants to show that it is net win for both countries
Great article. People like to categorise everything and put things in tidy boxes in their minds. Usually it's this or that, black or white etc etc. Life is a big grey area. There are advantages and disadvantages of everything. Politicians play to the gallery, have a tendency to oversimplify and advocate for issues which they think will win them the most votes. Add to this social media and algorithms picking up and amplifying extremist views because it will generate more content, nuanced argument or discussion takes a back seat.
I was honestly surprised that my comment surprised people. I suspect that at least some of it comes from people lacking sufficient real-world experience to understand the difference between saying "I would like policy X" and "therefore policy X is easy to recommend as a rational choice without regard to how the costs of said policies are borne." You might sell potato chips at that level, but you probably won't sell a computer, and you **certainly** won't sell a serious services contract without being able to clearly articulate the tradeoffs in a way that the customer can recognize as both honest and consultative.
"Customer" in this case consisting of angry voters who are quite tired of being talked to like they're idiots by politicians and "influential types" across the political spectrum.
--------------
In left-coded speech: every policy, no matter how high-minded, inflicts externalities, and equity demands that those advocating for a policy address those externalities, particularly when they affect those least able to participate in policy formation and public debate.
In right-coded speech: TANSTAAFL. Anybody who says differently is selling you a bill of goods.
While politicians may not acknowledge tradeoffs willingly, economic tradeoffs are an explicit part of many ballot propositions in subnational policymaking. If a US state or city wants to raise taxes to fund some kind of integration or immigrant support program, they sometimes put it to the voters.
This is a good point!
> "telling only half the story year after year eventually backfires, because people experiencing the downside of tradeoffs are not blind. Ignoring their experience doesn’t make it disappear; it just makes the messenger look dishonest..."
shouldn't be surprising, and yet...
Great and thoughtful piece
In general, brain drain research is also not convincing, specially if you buy into Garett Jones/Pseudoerasmsu like arguments. It seems like that research wants to show that it is net win for both countries
Thanks for the article. This may be of interest:
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-fundamental-problem-for-immigration-929
Great article. People like to categorise everything and put things in tidy boxes in their minds. Usually it's this or that, black or white etc etc. Life is a big grey area. There are advantages and disadvantages of everything. Politicians play to the gallery, have a tendency to oversimplify and advocate for issues which they think will win them the most votes. Add to this social media and algorithms picking up and amplifying extremist views because it will generate more content, nuanced argument or discussion takes a back seat.
I was honestly surprised that my comment surprised people. I suspect that at least some of it comes from people lacking sufficient real-world experience to understand the difference between saying "I would like policy X" and "therefore policy X is easy to recommend as a rational choice without regard to how the costs of said policies are borne." You might sell potato chips at that level, but you probably won't sell a computer, and you **certainly** won't sell a serious services contract without being able to clearly articulate the tradeoffs in a way that the customer can recognize as both honest and consultative.
"Customer" in this case consisting of angry voters who are quite tired of being talked to like they're idiots by politicians and "influential types" across the political spectrum.
--------------
In left-coded speech: every policy, no matter how high-minded, inflicts externalities, and equity demands that those advocating for a policy address those externalities, particularly when they affect those least able to participate in policy formation and public debate.
In right-coded speech: TANSTAAFL. Anybody who says differently is selling you a bill of goods.