Yglesias has had a run of fucking stupid, obnoxious posts like this ever since he's come back from Netroots. I think he's just a got latent hippie-punching tendency or something. By the time he's 50 he'll be the most annoying pundit in America.
Remember that he got his start as a pro-war hippie puncher. He's just reverting to type.
It's like exporting hazardous waste to poor countries: The bribes paid to corrupt officials get spent on luxury goods, most of which are made in China, in factories that also pay a lot of bribes, and eventually all the money ends up in Switzerland, where the prudent, conservative Swiss pay their anarchists to run youth drop-in centers, reducing street crime. Everybody wins!
Doesn't Glyssattamedia periodically restate the value proposition of his opinions as the application of "logic," expressly distinguished from informed expertise, to the kingdom Internet ephemera, genus socio-political? Not to prick anybody's Crimson bubble, for fear of self-indictment, but is that sort of thing all that valuable?
My parents fled a poor country (communist Czechoslovakia). My father would have either worked in a factory or worse instead of taking a postdoc here. I would not have gone to college.
After retiring, he has returned to Prague, where his recreational interest in prairie grasses means he now actively gardens in and advises the gardeners of many hundreds of hectares of otherwise completely neglected land. He helps local nature groups keep land from being either used as dumping grounds or developed into golf courses. At my kid's school, about half the immigrant African parents are well educated, and work below their station. None of those here from Cote d'Ivoire have been shot by gangs of Gbagbo supporters.
A point not mentioned yet is that immigration sucks. You don't know how things work in the new country, lose family and social networks. While there may be a few star doctors who leave the hospital in Tehran or Nairobi poorer for their absence, many educated people leave places where there is either no work or there is work and circumstances even shittier than a bad job in an immigrant neighborhood here.
The sticking point is that all of this is true for unskilled people also, and I do not think that completely open borders are a good idea. Immigration gets romanticized by everyone but the immigrants, I think.
But basically, unless there's real social disruption, I am firmly for letting people live where they want.
5: There are other more valid trade-offs, like that, listed in the post. I just found this one particularly stupid.
I just wanted to make sure that neil's comment from the doctor thread was linked here.
I think this line from Yglesias, "we buy more Chinese manufactured goods and Kenyan coffee beans." is stupid, but I don't have a strong position on the underlying question because I do think it's complicated.
The remittances thing is the original silver lining that kicks off Yglesias's post.
I'm at the point now where I intuitively reject even Yglesias' good arguments because he's the one making them. The shtick of watching him figure out the world through logic and a few theoretical books he's digested but without any desire to gain actual expertise was cute when he was 21 but has gotten really old. On the other hand, he's still good at quickly and briefly demolishing incredibly stupid right wing arguments.
If this is a general Yglesias thread I want to mention that I liked this post. It's overly simplistic in some ways that his commenters point out, but I think this sentence is both true and important:
In a world awash in right-wing nonsense, it becomes easy to think that the obvious wrongness of the right's policy prescriptions implies that the correct policy ideas are also obvious.
(obligatory disclaimer: Some desirable policies are both obvious and politically impossible at the moment, and it's worth repeating that fact as often as possible.)
12: obligatory disclaimer
Nick, doesn't your obligatory disclaimer invalidate Yglesias's post? Yes, some issues are more difficult than others, but the big issues right now are actually pretty easy. I'll enumerate:
-wind down the wars
-pump massive amounts of money into the economy
-start believing in the rule of law again
Sure, there are details to be worked out, and there are interesting conversations to be had about the important issues of city planning and intellectual property, but that doesn't change the fact that our biggest problems aren't that hard (conceptually) to solve.
One other thought about the paragraph quoted in the OP: I agree that it's stupid because it appears to assume that international trade has positive redistributive effects, which is strongly contested at the moment*, but I see how Yglesias could have arrived there.
One of the arguments that he's been making strongly for the last couple of years is that people do a very poor job of comparing visible harms to invisible benefits. He's had a variety of posts that make an argument something like, "if a policy would cause 100 people to each lose $1,000 and would cause 10 million people to each gain 20c it's a clear win, even if our natural inclination is to feel sorry for the people losing the money." I think he's trying (poorly) to make a similar argument here.
* Footnote: One of the best arguments that I've seen in favor of buying goods from third world countries, even under the current trade agreements and conditions is this old post from DeLong, but note that he qualifies it by saying, "The big problem (which the government of Kerala and the CPI(M) are trying hard to solve) is the thin market/local politics monopsony of Mr. Shady Middleman. "
Nick, doesn't your obligatory disclaimer invalidate Yglesias's post?
Maybe, but only maybe. Certainly I don't have much patience for people crying, "complexity" as a way to stall arguments but, at the same time, I nodded when I read the sentence that I quoted.
One of the big things that I took away from the Climate War was the real difficultly of writing a major piece of legislation (and I note that only 1 of your three goals would require legislation). As a casual observer of politics it's easy to think that once you have a strong grasp of general principles that it can't be that difficult to turn them into policy, and I think discussions on unfogged can take that tone. But The Climate War convinced me that you can't just abstract out the step of, "and then we create a policy that will accomplish that." There's a tremendous amount of effort involved in doing that, and all sorts of opportunities for agreements to fracture.
But I may be getting far from Yglesias's post at this point.
11:Halford, Yglesias reads a lot (not counting online, blogs, papers, etc), my guess is 3-4+ books a week. (Maybe for scholars that isn't a lot) Mostly history, poli-sci, a little economics. I do not consider him at all ignorant uneducated. I suppose his aim is to be a generalist, and I am not sure what kind of reading program would serve him better than what he does.
I don't think he reads or studies enough classics, but a for a lot of people reading recent scholarship is more useful. By classics I mean Braudel, Goff, Bloch, for example rather than the latest on the American Revolution or recent meta-history. Since I believe only one in a thousand scholars have a clue about what was written before them. But that's probably my idiosyncrasy.
A point not mentioned yet is that immigration sucks. You don't know how things work in the new country, lose family and social networks.
This.
I don't doubt that he's a well read generalist, more so than I am. But most folks eventually develop a bit of professional expertise, whether scholarly or practical, and beat reporters tend to examine facts. In a number of areas that MY writes about where I know something (intellectual property, but others as well), he routinely makes large basic errors about what the facts are and what the basic issues at play are, even if you agree with his underlying theoretical assumptions. You see this also in his licensing posts or his posts on teaching, and sometimes on urban policy, where people often point out the ways in which his secondhand theoretical approach to problems don't match up with reality. Some of this is inevitable from someone who writes so much, but at that point you really need to question the whole value of the enterprise. As I say, though, if you read something really stupid from the right wing and think "I would immediately like a three sentence summary of why that's stupid" he's often your best source.
he routinely makes large basic errors about what the facts are
I would say he routinely makes large intermediate-level errors, saving the description "basic" for the kind of errors McArdle routinely makes.
My experience is that he's got a good turn of phrase (which immediately chucks him into the top quintile of opinion writers), and that although I often worry terribly about how many things he apparently doesn't know, he's actually got pretty good instincts for the way the world works; he's often embarrassingly wrong about details, but rarely on the big picture (compare the Rortybomb blog, which is great on details, but occasionally makes noticeable excursions, like the time when administrative screwups in mortgage documentation were going to Bring Down Capitalism As We Know It). He's less neogliberal than Brad DeLong, and I still read Brad, so I don't see much reason upon which to hate.
There's something about economics that encourages sociopathy. Even if on a purely economic level immigration is a win (and it can be if since the immigrant sends back significantly more money than he or she would earn at home, f'rex), the loss of a skilled person from the poorer society hurts the society at large. A role model is gone and the idea of the poorer nation as a shithole that ought to be escaped is reinforced in the minds of those who stay behind. Winners leave, losers stay.
I'm generalizing, but I think the the gist is right.
Some donor countries already have a surplus of educated people being treated like shit. Why is intelligentsia-in-exile worse than government in exile?
(and I note that only 1 of your three goals would require legislation)
This is completely wrong. I would have thought that the last few decades would have made quite clear that the American penchant for immoral wars of choice and disinclination to hold high officials accountable for law-breaking is not just a problem of bad apples; it's a systemic issue. There are no political costs to war and to increasing the military budget; there are costs to pushing against that. Same with RoL issues. Even if Obama had been ideal as far as immediately pulling out, closing Guantanama, starting the investigative process into various Bush-era misdeeds, this same shit would keep happening with the next non-saint president. Institutions are the problem, not (so much) individuals.
lw has it completely right. What makes a skilled person economically useful is--as progressives are usually wont to stress--being embedded in a functioning economy with others who have complementary skills. Often part of the problem with countries whose brains are supposedly being drained is that these networks aren't (yet) in place.
Finally, I find the idea that you owe it to your country to stay put and be an economically productive citizen where you were born rather repugnant.
Yeah, I think the connotations around 'brain drain' are pretty convoluted these days. In the biggest contributors, China and India, not only does it seem that emigration is a big part of the incentive for accumulating skills and credentials, but it also seems to be de facto government policy. Of course, the whole question of outsourcing skilled jobs offshore muddles the issue even further.
Of course, as an anarchist and anti-nationalist, I do advocate for the opening (and eventual abolition) of borders. Condemn someone to starvation and misery for the sake of a piece of colored cloth? Not bloody likely.
But as the great-grandchild of immigrants, in a community that has, from my earliest childhood, made a concerted effort to be more open to and welcoming of immigrants, especially refugees, than many other places, it's hard for me not to have some romantic attachment to immigration. Not in a crass, 'melting pot' sort of way of course, but rather taking as a whole the bittersweet process of loss and becoming. I do think there's more to it than just economic calculation.
Shit, I mean, I'd love to emigrate. Put me on the next boat to Copenhagen and I would never look back. That's unlikely to come to pass though, given the current political situation in Denmark.
19 is fair. Even in the post under discussion, MY doesn't get the bottom line wrong -- there are, for reasons articulated in this thread, reasons to not just blithely accept "brain drain" as a cost without substantial offsetting benefits. OTOH, the fact that more people can buy Kenyan coffee beans as a result of immigration is not a remotely good or persuasive argument.
And then I go and read this piece from MY which is just so, so dumb. Do you think that workers in 1937 might have felt that they had something to lose, too?
26: I think he makes a qualifiedly good point that things are different from 1937, although whether this really needs to be reiterated is questionable. I don't see the issue as living standards so much. Yes, if you compare people at a certain percentile of income to their counterparts 85 years ago, they are better off by most material measures. But there's still an objectively huge mass of people who live pretty bleak lives, getting bleaker by the day. I think the error comes in not historicizing the way that the business unions became guardians of the middle class standard of living of their own members. We have plenty of people in this country who are crying out for the protections and benefits that union membership would provide, but the capitalists, the government and often, sadly, the business unions, frustrate their desires again and again. The discourse in Wisconsin last winter around the purported middle-classness of the movement there was a case in point of how the big unions have largely abandoned any claim they had to the mantle of the class warriors of the 1930s. Once you start down the path of "what's most important is protecting existing interests" then the capitalists have already won.
to add to neil the ethical werewolf's comment in the thread, lots of countries overproduce skilled workers and then have nothing for them to do. we would like to help the daughter of our former maid in the philippines get to the us so she can use her--not nursing degree, but sort of one or two levels below, like a skilled caretaker who can prevent bedsores and stuff. we paid for her to get a 3 year degree and now she has no job at all. better we finagle her into eugene oregon and she gets a decent job and supports her whole family. her mother (our former maid) supported the family previously by being a maid in narnia, despite having a few years of college and being egregiously over-skilled. if her daughter can get a job in an hospital she will make a TON of money, relatively speaking, and will send almost all of it home. somewhat shitty for her, but better than being unemployed on her home province, and some older patient will be happy to have a thoughtful caring person around. seems like win-win, setting aside the "it's a drag to emigrate and why should she have to support her whole extended family?" problem. that's quite different than "brain drain," though, it's like a cultural problem.
Do you think that workers in 1937 might have felt that they had something to lose, too?
Have you read much labor history? There were definitely cases where striking workers really didn't have much to lose.
MY may be to glib, but I don't think he's that far wrong in that post.
Nah, I'm sticking with the idea that "not that much to lose" isn't really a remotely useful explanation, since in large part people were then materially better off than they'd been 70 years ago, just like now. So, so stupid; employed workers out on strike always have something to lose. And I think that giving him props for " a qualifiedly good point that things are different from 1937" extends interpretative charity to positively saint-like levels.
Even if on a purely economic level immigration is a win (and it can be if since the immigrant sends back significantly more money than he or she would earn at home, f'rex), the loss of a skilled person from the poorer society hurts the society at large. A role model is gone and the idea of the poorer nation as a shithole that ought to be escaped is reinforced in the minds of those who stay behind. Winners leave, losers stay.
This is an interesting issue. Would you apply the same logic to migration of high-skill persons to big cities within the US? If not, what's the distiction?
Nah, I'm sticking with the idea that "not that much to lose" isn't really a remotely useful explanation
Here's one quotation. Though I'm sure he's indulging in a certain amount of poetic license, I'm not sure how much.
I can go looking for more in that vein if you want. I don't think you're altogether wrong, but I do think that, "employed in job, with a union" implied much less social power pre-WWII that it does now.
I do think that, "employed in job, with a union" implied much less social power pre-WWII that it does now.
Sure. If anything, that should make workers more inclined to take action, since they have more power. Also, "with a union" is doing a lot of work there.
Semi on-topic bleg, what's the best introductory level book on the history of the labor movement in the United States? It doesn't need to cover recent decades, although that would be a plus.
Also, "with a union" is doing a lot of work there.
That was part of Natilo's point in 27, and I certainly agree.
what's the best introductory level book on the history of the labor movement in the United States?
I would be curious about this as well, if anybody has recommendations.
You guys are missing the most outrageous recent Yggles post of all. Normally I like Matt but this one is really ridiculous.
I mean, I assume that 1937 is supposed to be referring to the Flint sit-down strike, which involved workers who (a) weren't yet in a recognized union and (b) had a ton to lose since they were employed workers in a major industry in a depression and were hardly at the bottom of the wage scale.
I assume that 1937 is supposed to be referring to the Flint sit-down strike
I didn't read the link, but the sentence that MY quotes, "we are a long time from 1937 when radicalism was well within the lived memory of most working-class people." encompasses conflicts predating 1937.
For example in the, "not much to lose" debate this is a pretty chilling statistic, about the conditions leading up to a major 1912 strike:
The mortality rate for children was fifty percent by age six; thirty-six out of every 100 men and women who worked in the mill died by the time they reached twenty-five.
That said, you're probably correct that the success and power of unions does not actually depend on their members having nothing to lose, and that a union representing more successful workers will be more powerful in most cases.
He's less neogliberal than Brad DeLong,
That hasn't been true for at least a year now.
Related, did you know that placing caps on campaign donations is just like saying that no one can sell Noah Chomsky books, only give them away for free? Or that the reason we need to pay our CEO's so much more than we used to is because they get paid so much more than they used to that any half way rational person would just retire on their savings after a couple years. So stop complaining about inequality in the modern US, there is nothing wrong with it.
)&(^#^$)(!!
Chrits, what an asshole.
P.S. NMM to Ai Wei Wei's detention.
18
... I know something (intellectual property, but others as well), he routinely makes large basic errors about what the facts are and what the basic issues at play are, even if you agree with his underlying theoretical assumptions. ...
The problem with this sort of critique is that often the "knowledgeable" people have a big stake in the status quo which reduces their credibility considerably.
Sometimes people who emmigrate to the US later return to their native countries and start businesses with what they have learned. Just a few such people can make a big difference.
A variant of this is when they remain in the US but enter into business agreements with friends or relatives who have remained behind.
Or that the reason we need to pay our CEO's so much more than we used to is because they get paid so much more than they used to that any half way rational person would just retire on their savings after a couple years. So stop complaining about inequality in the modern US, there is nothing wrong with it.
WAIT, WHAT?
29
Have you read much labor history? There were definitely cases where striking workers really didn't have much to lose.
I think the difference today is that more people are doing well enough today to have the freeedom to worry about things other than their pay and working conditions. So a lot of energy has been diverted to arguments over things like abortion or gay rights. Not to mention time consuming hobbies like fantasy sports or computer games.
To be fair, he spends much of that post arguing that its ridiculous to think that a tenured prof at a major public research university is any worse off than a CEO making eight figures.
The real crime in disucssing whether they should come here to better their country or they should stay there to better their country is well, who asked you to decide?
Sometimes people who emmigrate to the US later return to their native countries and start businesses with what they have learned. Just a few such people can make a big difference.
Fixed that for you. "Business expertise" is 90% a scam. Capital is however is shorter supply than you can imagine in many countries.
Also, what Martin said.
I think the difference today is that more people are doing well enough today to have the freeedom to worry about things other than their pay and working conditions. So a lot of energy has been diverted to arguments over things like abortion or gay rights.
This proves that no one was campaigning for votes for women or the abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century.
This proves that no one was campaigning for votes for women or the abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century.
Nor memorizing huge chunks of scripture or the Illiad.
Yglesias, as others note, gets the union thing backwards. It's not that modern people have more to lose through unionism, it's that (with the decreasing marginal utility of money) they have less to gain.
And holy cow, the link in 37 is dumb as shit. I used to be a religious reader of Yglesias, and I thought I was still a regular reader, but I hadn't read any of this crap. I used to predict that Yglesias would, as he aged, become Kinsley-ized, but it's starting to look as though he's dropped faster and further.
[W]e still have a lot of troops [in Afghanistan]. And we still have a fair number of troops in Iraq. And we're engaged in don't-call-it-a-hostilities in Libya. And doing something in Yemen and Pakistan. Managing all this probably takes a fair amount of time for the president, the National Security Council, some key cabinet secretaries, etc. And the problem is that in the grand scheme of things of all those places, only Pakistan really has any significance. . . . However world history turns out, I think people 100 years ago will have their minds blown when they see how much time policymakers were spending thinking about Yemen.
He isn't wrong about the costs involved, this os one of the lessons that I took from reading The Clinton Tapes is the shear number and unpredictability of the challenges facing the president*. At the same time I think he's wrong to pretend that you can solve the problem by just not worrying about Yemen.
Not only is it true in this case, as x trapnel said in 22, that "Institutions are the problem" I think Yglesias is wrong in implicit goal that he has for the institutions. It sounds like he wants to see an executive branch which, broadly speaking, focus it's energies on getting the best possible responses to the largest problems.
While that sounds like a good idea, I just don't think that's the role that the modern president/white house/executive branch can play. I think it's both inevitable that the White House staff will try to keep track of, and prepare responses to events from around the world, I also think it's good that they attempt that. It's way to difficult to predict the future for me to feel comfortable saying that "ignoring things which aren't currently important" is a good strategy.
It may well be a good strategy for think tanks. I think it would be a fine idea if CAP wants to focus on six or seven big picture policy problems and keep working on bringing attention to them, and coming up with better policy proposals. But I don't think that's a viable strategy for the president.
Which isn't to say that he's wrong that we're devoting a lot of resources to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan which don't seem to be productive; but that isn't a new observation.
* Taking credit for a moment, I note that I wrote in an e-mail on 10/19/09, "One thing that strikes me reading [The Clinton Tapes], however, is that it makes me worry about Obama in that it presents the challenges of the presidency as daunting. It makes me reflect on the fact that we don't have a model of a successful technocratic president. . . . As someone who mostly tries to solve problems by being smart, it makes me suspect that isn't a very good problem solving method to bring to the presidency and, as I said, makes me worry about how Obama will have to adjust."
this kind of thing is why i stopped reading MY.