We definitely aren’t entering a Dark Age, but we seem to be entering a Dim Age in which scholars are increasingly forbidden by authorities to investigate important but politically fraught topics, such as which type of immigrants generate the most tax revenue.
From the Journal of Political Economy:
Cultural Values and Productivity
Andreas EkThis paper estimates differences in human capital as country-of-origin-specific labor productivity terms in firm production functions, making it immune to wage discrimination concerns. After accounting for education and experience, estimated human capital varies by a factor of around three between the 90th and the 10th percentile. When I investigate which country-of-origin characteristics most closely correlate with human capital, cultural values are the only robust predictor. This relationship persists among children of migrants. Consistent with a plausible cultural mechanism, individuals whose origin places a high value on autonomy hold a comparative advantage in positions characterized by a low degree of routinization.
Well, that sounds fascinating. So, what countries of origin produce migrants and their children with three times the labor productivity of other countries-of-origins? Give us some examples!
Well, Professor Ek at Lund U. is not allowed to report the names of high and low human capital countries.
In Ek's excellent new @JPolEcon piece on migrants to Sweden, he reports a "significant dispersion in human capital across countries [of origin] with a 90/10 percentile ratio of 3.2."
— Garett is raising money for the Richmond SPCA (@GarettJones) March 18, 2024
So, which are at the 90th percentile?
The ethics review board wouldn't let him tell us.
🧵: pic.twitter.com/FQk64DxlmV
"Therefore, [because of the requirements unfortunately imposed by others] I will present only results that are related to country characteristics and never point to specific countries." pic.twitter.com/jIkhHN4F8M
— Garett is raising money for the Richmond SPCA (@GarettJones) March 18, 2024
