Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1175

Below is an interesting example of how international migration – and being open to it – can have positive economic impacts by way of increased foreign direct investment (FDI). The excerpt is from the World Economic Forum .

“…we document that FDI follows the paths of historical migrants as much as it follows differences in productivity, tax rates, education, and other conventional determinants of economic competitiveness – for the average US county, doubling the number of individuals with ancestry from a given origin country increases by 4 percentage points the probability that at least one firm from this US county engages in FDI with that origin country, and increases by 29% the number of local jobs at subsidiaries of firms headquartered in that origin country.”

Their study also found that these ties are long lasting. That is, even after a few generations of assimilation, ancestry still has an effect on FDI patterns. 

There are of course many other benefits to open borders. But our collective tolerance toward immigration has ebbed and flowed greatly over time. And my sense is that if often has a relationship with prosperity.

As long as times are good and I – the incumbent – am winning, then immigration is accepted, if not welcome. But as soon as times become scarce, then I – the incumbent – need to start protecting my nest.

This may be one of the reasons why Canada seems to fair so well when it comes to diversity. We optimize for the middle more than countries like the US.

An example of this phenomenon can be found in the mid-19th century California Gold Rush . By 1876, the United States had approximately 151,000 people of Chinese ancestry and about 116,000 of them were in the state of California.

In the early days of the rush, when gold was abundant, it has been said that the foreign Chinese laborers were well received. But as gold became more scarce and difficult to find, Californians began to believe that the Chinaman was stealing their wealth.

In 1882, the US signed the Chinese Exclusion Act , which flat out prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers. It was not repealed until 1943. However, the Chinese still found other creative ways to enter the country (see Lo Mein Loophole ).

I say all this simply to provide a bit more context . We can talk about how disruptive technologies are squeezing the middle class in new and profound ways. But in many ways, we’ve all heard this story before.

I just discovered an interesting Dallas-based startup this morning called TOOR . They were on Shark Tank and haven’t yet launched their product, but it’s essentially a connected lockbox. Lockboxes are a mainstay of the residential real estate industry (they hold the keys so that co-operating agents can show a property) and they are becoming even more common nowadays because of Airbnb rentals.

What caught my attention about TOOR is the app that goes along with the lockbox that also allows people to search for homes. Once you’ve found a home you can even find an agent for an escorted tour. I’m not clear on the exact workflow, but I am thinking that if you buy this connected lockbox you then have the opportunity to put your home up for sale on their platform.

This is interesting because the app will also verify user identities and scan people’s IDs, so it helps to solve the security problem that agents today now solve. I could imagine the app storing my credit card so that if I go into a home unescorted and I do something mischievous, it then charges me. It also makes it really easy to just drive around and pop into homes by instantly scheduling appointments.

In any event, I may have the exact user flows a bit wrong, but it’s fascinating to think about how something as simple as a connected lockbox could start to chip away at the status quo.

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about fluid labor markets and urban density, I thought I would present an opposing view.

Joel Kotkin is a well known geographer and author. He has published a number of books, the most recent of which is called, The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us . He is also well known as a supporter of the suburbs, which is a somewhat contrarian view in today’s urban-centric world.

Here is a recent interview he did with Aaron M. Renn ( click here if you can’t see it below):

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/257309155" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

One of his messages is that the urban core is great for young people without kids, but that we shouldn’t expect it to serve everyone’s needs and wants – particularly those of families. Families need space and affordability, and urban cores are simply not engineered for that.

Long live the suburb.