Labor Day offers a timely reminder that we can markedly improve the lives of workers by enabling a larger share to vote with their feet, both inside countries and through cross-border migration.
Since 2021, each Labor Day I publish pieces outlining how removing obstacles to the movement of labor could lift the prospects of millions of workers worldwide. The core arguments from last year remain just as pertinent today. Accordingly, I’m presenting an updated version with a few revisions and additions, many of them reflecting the troubling decline in immigration policy over the past year:
Today marks Labor Day, and there are plenty of debates about what can be done to assist workers. Yet very few focus on one reform that stands to help more low-income and disadvantaged people than nearly any other: expanding labor mobility. Across the United States and across the globe, too many workers find themselves stuck in places where escaping poverty is nearly impossible. They could greatly improve their circumstances if they were allowed to “vote with their feet” by relocating to regions with better job opportunities. That shift would also yield substantial benefits for society at large.
On the international stage, the chief barriers locking millions into poverty and oppression are immigration restrictions. Economists estimate that removing legal obstacles to migration worldwide would roughly double global GDP—essentially making the world twice as productive as it is now. Those born in Cuba or Venezuela, Zimbabwe or Afghanistan often face lifelong poverty through no fault of their own. If they could move to a freer society with stronger institutions, their incomes and productivity could rise by two- to threefold almost immediately. And that assessment does not even account for the potential gains from improving their job skills, which is more likely to occur in a new homeland than back home.
The enormous wealth unlocked by reducing migration barriers would naturally benefit migrants themselves, but it would also bring vast advantages to the native populations of host countries. They would enjoy cheaper and higher-quality goods, amplified innovation, and the emergence of new businesses (immigrants start enterprises at higher rates than natives). Immigrants also contribute disproportionately to scientific and medical breakthroughs, including vaccines and other medical treatments that have already saved millions of lives around the world.
The Trump Administration’s sweeping assault on immigration across nearly all categories is predictably harming both migrants and native-born Americans, trapping hundreds of thousands of migrants in poverty and oppression while depriving the latter of the growth and innovation that immigration fosters. More recently, in part due to a flawed Supreme Court ruling, hundreds of thousands of Haitians and others have been stripped of legal status, thereby harming both these migrants and the many U.S. industries that rely on them.
Comparable, though less extreme, barriers to labor mobility also inflict damage on workers within the United States. Exclusionary zoning prevents many millions of Americans—especially the poor and working class—from relocating to areas with better job opportunities, which would raise their wages and living standards. Occupational licensing further intensifies the problem by making it harder for workers in many fields to move from one state to another.
Breaking down obstacles to labor mobility is a frequently overlooked shared interest of poor minorities (most of whom lean Democratic) and the increasingly Republican white working class. Both groups could gain from greater chances to move to places with more and better employment and educational opportunities. Much can be done to address these issues through a blend of political action and litigation under federal and state constitutions alike.
Just as with reducing immigration restrictions, dismantling domestic barriers to labor mobility would yield enormous benefits for society as a whole, as well as for the migrants themselves. Economists estimate that loosening exclusionary zoning would significantly boost economic growth. Like international migrants, domestic ones can become more productive and innovative when allowed to relocate to places where their talents can be put to better use.
Many reform proposals for helping workers have a zero-sum orientation. They seek to transfer wealth from employers, investors, or consumers, or some mix of the three. Since nearly all workers are also consumers, and many have investments (for example, through retirement accounts), zero-sum policies that aid them in one respect can easily harm them in another. By contrast, removing barriers to labor mobility is a positive-sum venture that yields enormous gains for workers and society at large; it benefits both migrants and natives alike.
The same logic applies to the movement of goods. Tariffs and other trade barriers hurt far more workers than they help by raising prices (which hit lower-income earners hardest) and by increasing the cost of inputs used by domestic industries (which reduces employment and wages). In February, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s expansive and unconstitutional IEEPA tariffs in a case I helped litigate. Yet the administration has attempted to replace them with similarly illegal and harmful tariffs under various pretexts, such as combating “forced labor” or addressing “balance of payments deficits.” Legal challenges to these measures are ongoing.
Some on the left argue that if investors can move capital freely, workers should be allowed to move just as freely. It is true that, because government policies restrict labor mobility, investment capital tends to be more mobile than labor. It is also true that labor mobility restrictions are profoundly unjust. In many cases, they trap people in poverty simply due to the arbitrary circumstances of birth, much like racial segregation and feudalism once did. The imbalance between labor and capital, and its parallels with segregation and feudalism, should push progressives to prioritize expanding labor mobility higher on their agenda.
At the same time, it’s important to recognize that investors and employers, as a class, are likely to gain from greater labor mobility too. Greater productivity and innovation generate new investment opportunities. The primary enemies of both workers and capitalists are not each other, but the combination of nativists and NIMBYs who erect movement barriers, thereby needlessly impoverishing labor and capital alike. Despite common wisdom to the contrary, even current homeowners often stand to gain from scaling back exclusionary zoning policies that block housing needed by workers seeking to move into the area.
On the right, conservatives who prize meritocracy and oppose racial and ethnic preferences should recognize that few policies are as anti-meritocratic as mobility barriers. The case for ending them also aligns with the broader argument for color-blind government policies. Several other conservative values reinforce the rationale for limiting both domestic NIMBYism and immigration restrictions. Right-wing thinkers should also acknowledge that most workers benefit from free trade and are harmed by protectionism.
There are those who oppose increasing labor mobility, arguing either that existing communities have an inherent right to exclude newcomers or that allowing migration would bring about various negative side effects. I address these kinds of arguments here, and at greater length in Chapters 5 and 6 of my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. As I discuss in those works, nearly all such objections are erroneous, exaggerated, or can be softened by “keyhole solutions” that are less drastic than outright exclusion. Moreover, the vast new wealth generated by expanding mobility can be harnessed to address any potential adverse effects. In the book, I also challenge the claim that mobility should be curtailed to protect those left behind in the communities of origin for migrants.
In recent years, there has been meaningful progress in reducing exclusionary zoning. A number of states have enacted occupational-licensing reforms that facilitate freer movement across states. Yet there remains substantial room for improvement in these areas. When it comes to international migration, however, we are witnessing a period of brutal regression.
Workers of the world, unite to demand more freedom of movement!
