Scan barcode
ashrafulla's review against another edition
2.0
This is very academic book, filled to the brim with numbers & conclusions of what must be over 1000 papers. The message is towards the end of the final chapter, which is the claim that an open-borders strategy is a short-term-pain, long-term-gain that requires global governance to supersede the political realities of individual states. To prove that point, written is fact after fact after fact, most of which is essentially statistical significance studies. The hope is that by pounding you with study after study, declarative statement after declarative statement, you are pummeled into agreement.
The lack of stars is mainly for this approach, which means that the message will only be heard by those who already agree. No one who advocates for a closed border will believe any of these statements, largely because of a healthy distrust for conclusions gleaned from what is at best shoddy statistics. Some of the story models make sense (for example the positive benefits of remittances) but relying on the age argument is a really tenuous stance. Saying that an aging population and low fertility will provide issues is extremely reductionist. Fertility rates are quite variable so extrapolating present fertility figures is an exercise in bad statistics. In addition, there is almost zero acknowledgement of the ability of productivity (the one thing that is guaranteed to increase) to supply the minimum levels of sustenance for everyone.
This is the main problem with the book. The story is "I claim this, here is my reference, shove it." There is a serious lack of examination of those references. For example, does a population that is elderly-heavy continue to do so for 100 years? If not, how does that change the model? What is the probability of that? How do the stats change when X or Y or Z happens? Because they are trying to overfill you with facts, they do not cover with any depth at all any of the critical assumptions they use. I know what the criticism would be from their side: "I gave you facts, just the facts, why are you complaining?" I'm complaining because they are not facts, they are statistical conclusions. Without a reasonable, relatively robust model behind those conclusions, they are pointless.
There is a great claim in this book, a claim that I think is good. However, this book is really for douchebags who want to feel good that their biases are righteous. You can find that on either the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report based on your preference; there's no reason to read this instead.
The lack of stars is mainly for this approach, which means that the message will only be heard by those who already agree. No one who advocates for a closed border will believe any of these statements, largely because of a healthy distrust for conclusions gleaned from what is at best shoddy statistics. Some of the story models make sense (for example the positive benefits of remittances) but relying on the age argument is a really tenuous stance. Saying that an aging population and low fertility will provide issues is extremely reductionist. Fertility rates are quite variable so extrapolating present fertility figures is an exercise in bad statistics. In addition, there is almost zero acknowledgement of the ability of productivity (the one thing that is guaranteed to increase) to supply the minimum levels of sustenance for everyone.
This is the main problem with the book. The story is "I claim this, here is my reference, shove it." There is a serious lack of examination of those references. For example, does a population that is elderly-heavy continue to do so for 100 years? If not, how does that change the model? What is the probability of that? How do the stats change when X or Y or Z happens? Because they are trying to overfill you with facts, they do not cover with any depth at all any of the critical assumptions they use. I know what the criticism would be from their side: "I gave you facts, just the facts, why are you complaining?" I'm complaining because they are not facts, they are statistical conclusions. Without a reasonable, relatively robust model behind those conclusions, they are pointless.
There is a great claim in this book, a claim that I think is good. However, this book is really for douchebags who want to feel good that their biases are righteous. You can find that on either the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report based on your preference; there's no reason to read this instead.
More...