E(X)>0: An Open Letter to Elon

Dear Elon:

I’m a big fan. I don’t just appreciate the greater openness you’ve brought to X. I appreciate your open mind and your famous candor. As the author of the New York Times best-selling Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, I’ve watched your recent debates on high-skilled immigration with great interest.

My candid assessment: You’re trying to defend two deeply incompatible positions on immigration. You started by saying that we should, roughly speaking, welcome anyone with a positive expected value. In your words:

Now you’re saying, roughly, that we should only welcome people that definitely have highly positive value. In your words:

Your original position is far more reasonable than your current one. Here’s why.

1. Imagine an entrepreneur who said, “Investment should be limited to projects that are obviously far above the market rate of return.” This is a prescription for hyper-cautious mediocrity — refusing to try anything unless you’re virtually sure it will be a great success. Which normally leads to trying next to nothing.

2. Fortunately for the world, you and other top entrepreneurs favor a radically different principle: Strive to make every investment with a positive expected value. E(X)>0. You don’t demand certainty of total triumph before you take action. Instead, you constantly make bets that you believe will work out on average. [Note: Like other economists, I’m counting the opportunity cost of alternative investments as a cost. X is economic profit, not accounting profit.]

3. When critics mock your bad bets, you don’t retreat into safetyism. Instead, you keep betting, secure in the knowledge that a policy of making every bet where E(X)>0 is the key to long-run success.

4. While there are obviously major differences between running a corporation and running a government, one of the main reasons why governments’ performance is so poor precisely that most spurn the principle of asking “Is E(X)>0?” in favor of safetyism.

5. Anytime you hire a worker, you’re taking a gamble. Maybe the person works out swimmingly; maybe they’re terrible. But “Hiring should be limited to workers who are obviously worth far more than their pay” is crazy. The right question to ask, as usual: “Is E(X)>0?”, where X is the value a worker adds minus their cost.

6. The same goes for immigration. Some immigrants work out swimmingly; a few are terrible. But “Immigration should be limited to those who will obviously contribute far more than they take” is crazy. Instead ask, “Is E(X)>0?”

7. You could reply: “Fine, but only very high-skilled immigrants have E(X)>0.” But look at your own companies. You don’t just hire top engineers and programmers. You hire receptionists, assembly-line workers, janitors, gardeners, and construction workers. With good reason: Otherwise, your top engineers and programmers would have to waste their precious time answering Tesla’s phones, assembling its cars, cleaning its toilets, mowing its lawns, and pouring its concrete.

8. This isn’t just true on the job; it’s true inside the household. Your top engineers and programmers are only able to work 80-hour weeks because they can hire nannies and maids, ride in Ubers, and order food delivery. High-skill productivity depends on an abundance of complementary low-skill productivity.

9. The vast majority of humans who are “hard-working, honest, and love America” are not top engineers and programmers - or even in the top half of GRE scores. Especially globally, these stars are vastly outnumbered by ordinary, humble people with E(X)>0. Your company needs them — and your country needs them.

10. Like you, I am an enthusiastic natalist. (12 kids! Thank you for your service). As far as I know, you’ve never limited your pro-child preaching to the elite. Why? Because you’re asking the right question: Not “Will another baby obviously contribute far make than he takes” but “Is E(X)>0?”

11. What does an immigration policy that focuses on E(X) look like? Look at a country you know well: United Arab Emirates. Since its founding in 1971, this beacon of hope in the Middle East has grown from a population of 280,000 to 9.5 million. GDP has multiplied over 200-fold. How? By welcoming not just “the best of the best,” but can-do people at all skill levels.

12. “But UAE heavily restricts welfare benefits for migrants!” Right you are. But that’s hardly a reason to retreat to safetyism, to insist that E(X) be obviously sky-high. Instead, it’s a reason to say, “We should definitely admit any immigrant with E(X)>0 given the welfare state” as well as, “Why on Earth don’t we heavily restrict welfare benefits for migrants, so E(X)>0 for far more people?!” Another great issue for DOGE to handle.

13. On X, you recently exhorted, “Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform.” My submission is this double-page spread from Open Borders, drawn by my collaborator, Zach Weinersmith of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. With zero sarcasm, I hope you find it positive, beautiful, and informative.

14. My friend and colleague Tyler Cowen recently advised you to stop publicly defending high-skilled immigration, and “just work behind the scenes.” Maybe he’s right, but I think he underestimates your powers of persuasion. Yes, loudly proclaiming, “Admit all immigrants with E(X)>0” and “UAE has the best immigration policy on Earth” could backfire. But the expected value of making these loud proclamations is still positive.

15. I know I’m not likely to persuade you in a single blog post. In fact, you’ll probably never read it, or even hear that I wrote it. But I’m still a fan. Unlike a lot of people these days, I focus on the good in other people. And there is a lot of good in you. Thanks for all the good you do, Elon.