If you have a constant population, and GDP increases, productivity per person has increased. But if you have a border on a map enclosing some people, and you move it so it encloses more people, productivity hasn’t increased.
Can you give examples of people confirmed to be actually making the mistake this post discusses? I don’t recall seeing any.
The standard economist claim (and the only version I’ve seen promulgated in LW and EA circles) is that it increases gross world product (total and per capita) because migrants are much more productive when they migrate to developed countries. Here is a set of references and counterarguments.
Separately, some people are keen to increase GDP in particular countries to pay off national fixed costs (like already incurred debts, or military spending).
Did you mean world to modify GDP? If you did, that’s really confusing, because GDP (“domestic”) is specifically local. If you concatenate “world GDP” is pretty clear what you mean, but if you separate that like this, it is natural to parse it as “world and national,” which is probably not what you mean, since that is pretty much the error Phil is talking about. Your links are careful to always concatenate, though.
Can you give examples of people confirmed to be actually making the mistake this post discusses? I don’t recall seeing any.
The standard economist claim (and the only version I’ve seen promulgated in LW and EA circles) is that it increases gross world product (total and per capita) because migrants are much more productive when they migrate to developed countries. Here is a set of references and counterarguments.
Separately, some people are keen to increase GDP in particular countries to pay off national fixed costs (like already incurred debts, or military spending).
Did you mean world to modify GDP? If you did, that’s really confusing, because GDP (“domestic”) is specifically local. If you concatenate “world GDP” is pretty clear what you mean, but if you separate that like this, it is natural to parse it as “world and national,” which is probably not what you mean, since that is pretty much the error Phil is talking about. Your links are careful to always concatenate, though.
I meant GWP without introducing the term. Edited for clarity.