Economist Highlights Zero-Sum Fallacy in Political Debates on Immigration and Wealth

Chris Freiman, a prominent economist and professor, recently asserted that both conservative and progressive viewpoints often fall prey to "zero-sum thinking" when discussing critical economic issues like immigration and wealth distribution. According to Freiman's tweet, this mindset incorrectly assumes that one group's gain must inherently come at another's expense. His commentary underscores a fundamental economic principle often overlooked in political discourse.

Zero-sum thinking, derived from game theory, is a psychological construct where situations are perceived as fixed-pie scenarios, meaning "your gain is my loss." This concept, often termed the "fixed-pie fallacy" in economics, has historical roots in anthropological observations of resource-scarce environments. It posits that wealth and opportunities are finite, leading to competitive rather than cooperative outlooks.

In the context of immigration, Freiman's observation points to the conservative argument that admitting more immigrant workers leads to fewer jobs or lower wages for native-born citizens. This perspective aligns with the "lump of labor fallacy," which assumes a fixed number of jobs in an economy. However, economic analysis frequently demonstrates that immigrants contribute to economic growth, create new businesses, and increase overall demand, expanding the economic pie rather than merely redistributing existing slices.

Similarly, Freiman identifies zero-sum thinking in progressive critiques of wealth accumulation, where the rich getting richer is seen as directly impoverishing others. While concerns about wealth inequality are valid, an economic counter-argument emphasizes that wealth can be created through innovation, productivity, and mutually beneficial exchanges. This view suggests that policies focused solely on redistribution without considering wealth generation may miss opportunities for overall societal advancement.

Freiman, a Professor of General Business at West Virginia University with research interests in political philosophy, distributive justice, and immigration, frequently engages with these topics. His work often explores how ingrained beliefs about economic interactions influence policy preferences. Academic research supports that a zero-sum mindset correlates with support for redistributive policies, such as progressive taxation and universal healthcare, as well as more restrictive immigration policies.

The prevalence of zero-sum thinking extends beyond partisan lines, influencing various policy debates. Studies indicate that individuals who perceive the world through a zero-sum lens are more likely to support government intervention to "correct" perceived imbalances, regardless of their broader political affiliation. This highlights how deeply ingrained psychological frameworks can shape public opinion on complex economic matters.