A new paper in the QJE [the Quarterly Journal of Economics], The Global Race for Talent: Brain Drain, Knowledge Transfer, and Growth, by Marta Prato uses extensive data on inventors and their migration to make the following points.

(i) gross migration is asymmetric, with brain drain (net emigration) from the EU to the United States; (ii) migrants increase their patenting by 33% a year after migration; (iii) migrants continue working with inventors at origin after moving, although less frequently; (iv) migrants’ productivity gains spill over to their collaborators at origin, who increase patenting by 16% a year when a co-inventor emigrates.

Notice that migration doesn’t just relocate talent from the EU to the US; it amplifies talent. Preventing “brain drain” would create short-term gains for the EU but retaining talent at lower productivity would stifle long-term innovation and patenting, ultimately slowing growth for both the EU and the world. In short, even the EU gains from sending talent to the US! The effect would be much larger if we can import high-skill immigrants from countries where their skills are even less productive than in the EU. Ideally, other nations could replicate the US institutions that supercharge productivity, creating global economic gains. For now, however, the US seem to be a unique Galt’s Gulch for talent.

Prato concludes with a practical suggestion:

On the migration policy side, doubling the size of the U.S. H1B visa program increases U.S. and EU growth by 4% in the long run, because it sorts inventors to where they produce more innovations and knowledge spillovers.

Of course, when we expand the H1B program, we should allocate the visas by compensation rather than by lottery. (Jeremy Neufeld runs the numbers). In this way, we would get the most valuable workers. And please don’t tell me that we need a lottery so some poor startup can hire workers. No. Unless you have some compelling argument for why there is a massive externality and why lotteries (lotteries!) are the best way to target that externality we should let price allocate.

The FBI has closed its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) office.

…

The decision follows growing criticism from Republican lawmakers. Earlier this month, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, condemning what she described as “radical” DEI initiatives that she argued had “endangered” Americans, citing the New Year’s Day terrorist attack in New Orleans as an example.

“While the facts surrounding this unconscionable attack continue to emerge, what we know is deeply troubling: the suspect was in possession of weapons, improvised explosive devices, and an ISIS flag. This horrific incident constitutes a blatant act of terror on the American homeland, and the people of our country deserve to know whether federal law enforcement agencies can sufficiently prevent and respond to such incidents,” Blackburn wrote in her letter. “To that end, I am deeply concerned that—under your leadership—the Bureau has prioritized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives over its core mission of protecting the American people.”

Blackburn’s letter also pointed to a report by retired FBI agents warning that the agency’s “law enforcement and intelligence capabilities of the FBI are degrading because the FBI is no longer hiring ‘the best and the brightest’ candidates.” She also highlighted the 2021 hiring of a Chief Diversity Officer and the New Orleans field office’s “Diversity Agent Recruiting Event” held in July as examples of the agency’s intensified focus on DEI initiatives.

Blackburn also posed pointed questions regarding the FBI’s DEI hiring practices. She inquired about the number of employees the Bureau hired through its DEI initiatives, how these initiatives are funded, whether any funds were reallocated to support them, and how many individuals were hired during the New Orleans field office’s Diversity Agent Recruiting Event in July.

…

This announcement comes mere days before Trump’s inauguration. Talk about winning!

Let’s start with the University of Idaho, which has closed its cultural centers (that is, leftist ideological pods) following a long overdue directive from the State Board of Education to close down DEI programs (though of course some programs will be renamed and staff shuffled around, so there will need to be a second phase of DEI-hunting).

Inside Higher Education quotes a student employee of a now-shuttered “Women’s Center,” which is merely being moved to a new unit under a new name:

“The transition strips away culture and history entirely. We want to be grateful for what is left over and what we are still able to have, while grieving and deeply understanding how dangerous it is to holistically sweep away so many identities and personhood.”

She forgot to say “genocide!” (Perhaps that term is reserved only for speaking of Israel.) “Sweeping away many identities”? And “personhood”? It really does seem that the identitarians are so far gone that they doubt their own ontology unless there is a special campus office devoted to making them feel better. This whole word-salad is a perfect piece of evidence for why all of these programs need to be abolished, under whatever name they try to disguise them. (Recall the definition of “holistic” in Power Line’s Lexicon of Political Terminology: “Leftist adjective for ‘we have no idea how to think about or what to do about a problem and want to change the subject with a fog of pretentious adjectives.’”)

Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement could encourage others to stop pretending they believe in the cultish ideology of “systemic racism” and race-based guilt.

Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, formerly Facebook, made a stunning announcement. He was abolishing the company’s DEI programs and discontinuing its relationship with fact-checking organizations, which he admitted had become a form of “censorship.” The left-wing media immediately attacked the decision, accused him of embracing the MAGA agenda, and predicted a dangerous rise in so-called disinformation.

Zuckerberg’s move was carefully calculated and impeccably timed. The November elections, he said, felt like “a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” DEI initiatives, especially those related to immigration and gender, had become “disconnected from mainstream conversation”—and untenable.

This is no small about-face. Just four years ago, Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding left-wing election programs; his role was widely resented by conservatives. And Meta had been at the forefront of any identity-based or left-wing ideological cause.

Not anymore. As part of the rollout for the announcement, Zuckerberg released a video and appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, which now functions as a confessional for American elites who no longer believe in left-wing orthodoxies. On the podcast, Zuckerberg sounded less like a California progressive than a right-winger, arguing that the culture needed a better balance of “masculine” and “feminine” energies.

Executives at Meta quickly implemented the new policy, issuing pink slips to DEI employees and moving the company’s content-moderation team from California to Texas, in order, in Zuckerberg’s words, to “help alleviate concerns that biased employees are excessively censoring content.”

Zuckerberg was not the first technology executive to make such an announcement, but he is perhaps the most significant. Facebook is one of the largest firms in Silicon Valley and, with Zuckerberg setting the precedent, many smaller companies will likely follow suit.

The most important signal emanating from this decision is not about a particular shift in policy, however, but a general shift in culture. Zuckerberg has never really been an ideologue. He appears more interested in building his company and staying in the good graces of elite society. But like many successful, self-respecting men, he is also independent-minded and has clearly chafed at the cultural constraints DEI placed on his company. So he seized the moment, correctly sensing that the impending inauguration of Donald Trump reduced the risk and increased the payoff of such a change.

Zuckerberg is certainly not a courageous truth-teller. He assented to DEI over the last decade because that was where the elite status signals were pointing. Now, those signals have reversed, like a barometer suddenly dropping, and he is changing course with them and attempting to shift the blame to the outgoing Biden administration, which, he told Rogan, pressured him to implement censorship—a convenient excuse at an even more convenient moment….SNIP

A surprising number of federal government employees admit they are gearing up to act like a deep state, opposing the incoming second administration of Donald Trump.

Most Americans, even many of the elites who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, are willing to support Trump’s administration, according to an RMG Research survey commissioned by the Napolitan Institute. Yet 42% of federal government managers who work in the Washington, D.C., swamp intend to work against the administration.

RMG Research conducted three surveys in mid-December to study three different segments of the population. The polling firm focused on what it calls the Elite 1% who have postgraduate degrees, earn more than $150,000 annually, and live in densely populated areas; Main Street Americans who meet none of these three criteria and who represent between 70% and 75% of the U.S. population; and Federal Government Managers—federal employees who live in the National Capitol Region around Washington and earn at least $75,000 annually.

Main Street Americans tend to have less faith in government and want more freedom for Americans, while the Elite 1% tend to have more faith in government and say Americans have too much freedom. Main Street Americans tend to look down on the idea of a deep state opposing the people’s elected president.

Favorable Headwinds for Trump, With One Exception

The poll found that many Americans are willing to support the new administration, even among the elites and those who voted for Harris.

The survey asked, “Looking ahead to the next four years, will your political efforts be primarily to support the Trump administration or resist the Trump administration?”

Most Main Street Americans (59%) said they would support the new administration, while only 28% said they would resist it. Even the Elite 1% proved more likely to support (48%) than resist (39%) the administration.

Even some of those who said they voted for Harris in November said they would support the new administration. Twelve percent of Harris voters said they would work to at least somewhat support the new administration.

On Election Day, 64% of the Elite 1% voted for Harris, while only 34% voted for Trump. Yet among the Elite 1% who voted for Harris, a quarter (26%) said they are working to support the new administration.

Federal Government Managers, however, proved evenly split, with only 44% saying they would support the administration and 42% saying they would resist it.

Government Employees Joining the Resistance

Unsurprisingly, Federal Government Managers proved more gung-ho about resistance when they identified as Democrats.

While the vast majority of government employees who identify as Republicans plan to support the administration (89% “somewhat support” or “strongly support”), almost three-quarters of Democrat bureaucrats plan to resist (73% “somewhat resist” or “strongly resist”). More than half of Republican managers (52%) said they would “strongly support” the administration, while 40% of Democrats said they would “strongly resist” it.

A quarter of all managers (26%), whether Democrat or Republican, plan to “strongly support” the administration, and only a slightly smaller portion (23%) say they will “strongly resist” it.

The survey also asked federal government managers what they would do if Trump gave them a lawful order they considered bad policy. Only 17% of Democratic managers who voted for Harris would follow Trump’s order. Three times as many (64%) said they would ignore the order and do what they thought was best. This amounts to a declaration that they plan to act like a deep state, opposing the people’s elected president.

Voters did not look kindly on the idea of bureaucrats refusing to follow orders, however.

More than half (54%) of Main Street Voters said that a bureaucrat who refuses to follow a lawful order from the president should be fired, and even most of the Elite 1% (52%) agreed.

Most Republican managers (74%) say a bureaucrat should be fired for refusing a presidential order, while only 23% of Democratic managers agree.