It seems self-evident that moving from a lower-income country to a higher-income country can bring about enormous increases in a person’s income (e.g., multiplying it several-fold), dwarfing the effect of any sort of direct-aid intervention. But there are worries: Does letting more workers into a wealthy country take jobs from people already working there? Or does the competition for jobs reduce wages all around? These possibilities are a particular concern as they apply to low-skill workers, who are poorer.
David Roodman was hired to review of the evidence for potential side effects of immigration for the GiveWell charity research firm, a sort of "consumers reports" for charities.
Among his findings were:
- There is almost no evidence of anything close to one-to-one crowding out by new immigrant arrivals to the job market in industrial countries. Most studies find that 10% growth in the immigrant “stock” changes natives’ earnings by between –2% and +2%. Although serious questions can be raised about the reliability of most studies, the scarcity of evidence for great pessimism stands as a fact. The economies of destination countries largely appear flexible enough to absorb new arrivals, especially given time.
- The group that appears most vulnerable to competitive pressure from new low-skill migrants is recent low-skill migrants. This possibility is easy to miss when talking of the impacts of “immigrants” on “natives.” Yet it stands to reason: a newly arrived Mexican with less than a high school education competes most directly with an earlier-arrived Mexican with less than a high school education.
- One factor dampening the economic side effects of immigration is that immigrants are consumers as well as producers. They increase domestic demand for goods and services, perhaps even more quickly than they increase domestic production (@Hercowitz and Yashiv 2002@), since they must consume as soon as they arrive. They expand the economic pie even as they compete for a slice. This is not to suggest that the market mechanism is perfect—adjustment to new arrivals is not instantaneous and may be incomplete—but the mechanism does operate.
- A second dampener is that in industrial economies, the capital supply tends to expand along with the workforce. More workers leads to more offices and more factories. Were receiving economies not flexible in this way, they would not be rich. This mechanism too may not be complete or immediate, but it is substantial in the long run: since the industrial revolution, population has doubled many times in the US and other now-wealthy nations, and the capital stock has kept pace, so that today there is more capital per worker than 200 years ago.
- A third dampener is that while workers who are similar compete, ones who are different complement. An expansion in the diligent manual labor available to the home renovation business can spur that industry to grow, which will increase its demand for other kinds of workers, from skilled general contractors who can manage complex projects for English-speaking clients to scientists who develop new materials for home building. Symmetrically, an influx of high-skill workers can increase demand for low-skill ones. More computer programmers means more tech businesses, which means more need for janitors and security guards. Again, the effect is certain, though its speed and size are not.
His findings indicate that more low-skill immigration would stimulate employment in the kind of high-skilled professions that suffer from the wage-depression effects of the H1B program.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:45PM
When reading this study, keep in mind that its author, David Roodman, was the Senior Economic Advisor at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [davidroodman.com]. He holds a BA in Mathematics from Harvard and has studied for a year at Cambridge, and for a year as a Fulbright scholar in Vietnam. But has has no post-graduate credentials.
He has published prolifically in economics [google.com], despite having no degree of any sort in the field. He hates lentils, and is allergic to soy. He belongs to a Morris Dancing troupe [facebook.com].
-SLAA-
Join SLAA Today! SLAA (SOY LENTIL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers SOY LENTILS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - eating SOY LENTILS.
Do you eat SOY?
Do you eat LENTILS?
Do you eat SOY LENTILS?
If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then SLAA (SOY LENTIL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join SLAA (SOY LENTIL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time SLAA member.
SLAA (SOY LENTIL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing SOY LENTIL community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of SLAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 2 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of SOYLENT GREEN THE MOVIE and watch it.
Second, you need to join the official SLAA irc channel #SLAA on sylnt.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!
If you are having trouble locating #SLAA, the official SOY LENTIL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. For the right network, you can connect to irc.sylnt.us or chat.soylentnews.org.
If you have mod points and would like to support SLAA, please moderate this post up.
This post brought to you by a proud member of SLAA
-- LentilSoupIsMentalFruit [soylentnews.org]
(Karma cannot stop me.)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:28PM
This whole thing seems to ignore the cultural effect. Go ahead and bring in a bunch of Gypsies, Abbos, and Bushmen; and see what happens to the standard of living. Hell, even bring in a bunch of devout Muslims and see what happens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:32PM
> and see what happens to the standard of living
Why don't you just tell us, since you seem to think you know?
(Score: 1) by crgrace on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:21PM
According to figure 1 of the study, it goes down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:32PM
> According to figure 1 of the study, it goes down.
I don't see that.
I see one study that says it goes up, one study that says it goes down and one study that says it says the same - from the same guy who preivously thought it went down.
Maybe you and eth are seeing a different figure 1 from the rest of us. DTs perhaps?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:53PM
He got troll-modded for not being politically correct, but it does show a problem with the study that
"a newly arrived Mexican with less than a high school education" has a "broken window fallacy" that numerical increases in GDP for worker training and remedial education and the criminal industrial complex if it doesn't work makes better numerical metrics, but does nothing for increases of standard of living, if anything it drops. The broken window fallacy is along the lines of the best way to increase GDP metrics is to unleash a hurricane and destroy property and kill people, because lots of money will be made. Of course the hurricane lowers the overall standard of living even if the numbers go up. I'd rather have the higher standard of living and lower metric numbers on some report.
Another problem with the study is belief in the false god of the melting pot. "absorb new arrivals" and all that. My ancestors chucked German and scottish accents in about one generation if not less. We seem to be very effectively building an manipulable language segregated permanent underclass. Hmm that couldn't possibly cause any long term societal problems, could it? From personal experience the immigrants who did the melting pot thing have all been pretty awesome people. The problem is the ones who refuse to do the melting pot thing so their kids can't even read english in middle school and don't really have a future other than the criminal industrial complex. Whoops.
The muslims are literally taking over London from what I've read. As in forcing London to bow to their culture, not melting pot into London's culture. That's a societal / cultural disaster waiting to happen. The Scotts should vote for independence just to get away from that mess before it blows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:01PM
"a newly arrived Mexican with less than a high school education" has a "broken window fallacy" that numerical increases in GDP for worker training and remedial education and the criminal industrial complex if it doesn't work makes better numerical metrics, but does nothing for increases of standard of living, if anything it drops.
Do you perhaps want to rewrite that because it is nearly incomprehensible.
The muslims are literally taking over London from what I've read.
And from what I read they aren't. I even know a few muslims who live in London and it isn't even close. So there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:25PM
so what do you believe? do you believe that governments and nations should just throw their doors wide open, drop their drawers and bend over for every culture or creed that wants to move in? should the traditions and cultures of nations be lost to which ever culture can reproduce at the fastest rate? what's the point of governments then? none. but that's exactly what ass-hats like you want. one world government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:51PM
Here's an example... A guy that inherited a mansion from his parents in Rosarito Beach Mexico, that would be worth millions in the U.S. comes across the border to work. That's OK, but the guy is ripping people off big time with shabby workmanship. The employer doesn't care because he's making them a lot of money and won't replace him. He has no ambition to be better, just wants to make a lot of money here to live in luxury in Mexico.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:03PM
My ancestors chucked German and scottish accents in about one generation if not less.
Wow. Your ancestors, whom you never met, lost their accents after immigrating.
And because of that there were never any scottish or german enclaves [wikipedia.org] in America.
And all those cajun speakers, that language is native to america. Little Italies are also a figment.
The lies people tell themselves in order to rationalize the stupid shit they want to believe are pretty amazing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:13PM
My ancestors chucked German and scottish accents in about one generation if not less. We seem to be very effectively building an manipulable language segregated permanent underclass. Hmm that couldn't possibly cause any long term societal problems, could it?
What does someone's accent have to do with anything anyway? Seems very bigoted to me. North America was settled primarily by the English, so shouldn't it have English accents? But alas, it's all over the place. So why are you discriminating against Scottish accents? Why not Australian accents or Irish accents?
And how about those Mennonites or Amish, still speaking German? Are those too "manipulable language segregated permanent underclass"?
The muslims are literally taking over London from what I've read.
You read it somewhere, therefore it must be true. Anyway, not sure how "the Muslims" compare with "Germans". Maybe you should have said "the Christians" instead of mentioning nationalities?
The biggest problem with our society is the noisy bigots. Be those the psycho extremists on the muslim side, or the christian side, or the nationalistic side. Get rid of the extremists in one way or another, and the remaining 95% of society can live nicely along. Kind of like 5% of the population are criminals and another 5% are extremist/bigots and then they wreck it for the rest of us.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:59AM
And where are all these liberal philanthropists who are advocating building immigrant shelters near their million-dollar properties? Nowhere to be found, because like all elites they don't want for themselves what they want for everybody else.
And your assumption that absorbing immigrants who don't know English, are lacking in basic hygiene, and grew up amongst violence will be part of that magic 90% that will "just get along."
Who the hell are you, anyway, a restaurant owner in Napa valley?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:16AM
Your life must suck.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Tanuki64 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:36PM
Studies cost money. Studies are expensive. If you get a 'study' for free, unasked, it is not a study. It is advertizing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:56PM
> Why is this a study?
Why do you think anyone said it was a study?
Is this a case of you being unhappy with the conclusions and thus going all kookoo making up random things to complain about because the actual content is beyond your abilities?
(Score: 1) by Tanuki64 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:15PM
What else is it? And I could not care less, what this 'study' says. Wrong country. Wrong economy. So the actual content is quite irrelevant for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:26PM
> What else is it?
"hired to review"
> And I could not care less,
That is literally not true. Someone who cared less wouldn't have even bothered to read it much less post. Twice.
> Wrong country. Wrong economy.
So you don't live in an industrial country?
Its like everything you have to say on the topic is just soaked in sour grapes.
(Score: 1) by Tanuki64 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:36PM
"hired to review"
Revew what? Oh, of course: Evidence. Nope, totally different from a study.
That is literally not true. Someone who cared less wouldn't have even bothered to read it much less post. Twice.
I don't like pseudo-science, which is used to give an appearance of objectivity. "GiveWell charity research firm"... yep, sounds like one can expect totally impartial results.
So you don't live in an industrial country?
I do. So what? All industrial countries identical? Effects on a H1B program? Definitely not applicable to mine.
Its like everything you have to say on the topic is just soaked in sour grapes.
What did I say? That the makers of this 'study', sorry, I still call it 'study' most likely have their agenda? Hard to dismiss that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:50PM
> "GiveWell charity research firm"... yep, sounds like one can expect totally impartial results.
As indicated in the summary they research charities to figure out which ones are the most effective and thus worthy of donations. Their bias is pretty clear - charities that get results. Good thing we have you here to represent the side of charities that are ineffective. Gotta have balance!
(Score: 1) by Tanuki64 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:00PM
As indicated in the summary they research charities to figure out which ones are the most effective and thus worthy of donations.
And the results of this study are related to this task how exactly? I don't quite see how research in the side effects of immigration really helps the determine the most effective charities. I may be naive, but wouldn't it make more sense for a task like that to research which charities have the least administration overhead and which charity benefits the needy most?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:06PM
So now you've gone from claiming they have an obvious bias to wasting their money on research that is irrelevant to their goals?
I'm done spoon-fooding you. If you actually care about the answers to your questions, they are a click away.
But you couldn't care less, all you do want is to express animosity at ideas that conflict with yours - and being internally consistent is not a requirement for that.
(Score: 1) by Tanuki64 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:13PM
So now you've gone from claiming they have an obvious bias to wasting their money on research that is irrelevant to their goals?
Who went from where to where? I don't see any contradiction. You only helped me to see another aspect, which is a clear hint, that this study is most likely biased. Yep, this research is irrelevant for their official goals. So there must be others.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:41AM
You know, I've seen situations, both here and at the other site where an someone (usually an AC but sometimes a poster) challenges a person the entire way down a long thread, generally using insulting, angry, or vulgar language the entire while the person isn't pushing back and only continuing to ask questions. The person "attacking" never offers real answers, just abuse or accusations.
To me that usually means that you're on to something, and the challenger knows it and desperately fears what you are saying.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:09AM
Is that your passive-aggressive way of supporting the guy who bragged that he cares so little that he refuses to read the article?
Do you honestly think that guy is "on to" anything?
Because if you do, that's some serious anti-intellectualism.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 17 2014, @05:18AM
It's pretty late here, so I'm sorry if I missed it, but reviewing the thread, I see no where that he bragged about refusing to read the article, nor where he states he refuses to read the article. Perhaps you have this confused with a different thread?
Further, what bearing DOES the economic impact of immigration have to do with evaluating and rating charities for efficiency? Sounds like they're not doing too hot themselves.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @05:32AM
> I see no where that he bragged about refusing to read the article,
His repeated insistence that he couldn't care less combined with the fact that he obviously hasn't even read the very first sentence of the article makes it pretty clear.
> Further, what bearing DOES the economic impact of immigration have to do with evaluating and rating charities for efficiency?
I see that you too haven't even bothered to read the very first sentence of the article. Two peas in a pod you are.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 17 2014, @05:56AM
And you're missing the point. Charity shouldn't dictate immigration policy, it should operate within it.
Saying, "hey we could do more for people by bringing them all here and giving them jobs in the US" has about as much practical use as if did a study showing that "hey, we could invent a low power device that turns dirt into food and factories instantly." Yes, you can. No, it's not particularly helpful. I may exaggerate there, but the point is that unless charities have the ability to dictate immigration policy, the economic impact of immigration has little to do with evaluating and rating charities for efficiency. Thus, I ask why it has bearing.
He also uses "ironically" like Alanis Morisette. That grinds my gears.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @06:19AM
> And you're missing the point. Charity shouldn't dictate immigration policy, it should operate within it.
Hey, you read it! Well at least the first couple of sentences. Bully for you!
Their goal is clearly finding the most effective way to improve people's lives. You appear to be ideologically opposed to the avenue they are exploring, to the point of making random bad analogies. I'm not surprised.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:04PM
If an organisation was interested in exploring my ideological opposition to the point of funding me to produce a study on the matter, I bet you I would be more willing to give you something interesting beyond the bad analogies. Till then, that's what you get for free. This is SN; I'm just here for the hate. :P
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by Groonch on Wednesday September 17 2014, @08:55AM
Ironically, most of the examples from that Alanis Morissette song that people claim aren't ironic are actually quite solid examples of situational or cosmic irony. For instance, rain on your wedding day IS ironic if you were expecting sunshine (which is a safe assumption). "Coincidence" doesn't quite capture what's going on in that example. Yeah, a wedding and rain coincide, but it's the ironic contrast between the two that makes that coincidence noteworthy. Dying the day after you win the lottery on your 98th birthday is ironic, I'd argue, because the implication is that you played the lottery, probably habitually for many years, hoping for an outcome in which you win so that you can enjoy the money. That it works out such that you win and don't get to enjoy the money is situationally ironic. Etc. Etc.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:02PM
I never said it was wrong, just that such use gets on my nerves.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:34PM
No surprise there. The author's use of ironic here was entirely correct too. It is ironic that haphazardly designed policies could still produce good experimental data.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by crgrace on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:01PM
I read Mr. Roodman's study, and Table One shows the effect of immigration on wages of people already in the country. It shows decreases pretty much across the board. He synthesizes the results of three other studies and the overall affect (depending on the study) is a decline of wages of about 4% or no real change. I wonder why Mr. Roodman does not highlight this result.
If I were to summarize his findings they would be:
1. Immigration appears to increase the overall number of jobs and growth rate.
2. Immigration appears to decrease overall wages, especially wages of newly arrived immigrants.
I think this more-or-less follows my experience. As a thought experiment, imagine engineering became a minimum wage job. Companies would start all kinds of projects and grow, but the standard of living of engineers would decline. This is an extreme example, but is in line with Mr. Roodman's results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:28PM
> Immigration appears to decrease overall wages, especially wages of newly arrived immigrants.
However, the impact on recent immigrants should take into account their previous gains realized from immigrating. A 10% hit after a 2x-5x increase in wages realized by immigrating is still a big improvement.
The effect on natives' wages isn't so clear cut -- Borjas 2003 showed -3.2% while Borjas 2014 showed 0.0% and Ottaviano & Peri showed +0.6%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:32AM
imagine engineering became a minimum wage job
Imagine if the Bible thumpers weren't so selective about which parts of their scripture they accept and which parts they reject.
Imagine that, at the same time that the borders were thrown open, all property values were reset to something not completely ridiculous.
We could call it a Jubilee. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:40PM
Just a bunch of garbage. The US Census reports that non citizen incomes rose 15 times faster than citizen incomes [theblaze.com] and a careful reading of the monthly labor reports by the Dept. of Labor shows Native Worker displacement happening across the board.
Supply and Demand.
Import a whole bunch of low income workers, they drag down the wages of the working class. Guys who made a working class living drywalling can't do it anymore, as nearly limitless labor supply drives down wages AND NEPOTISTIC ETHNIC NETWORKS close out say, White workers in favor for Mexican ones. Can't even get hired on a job drywalling any more if you are not Mexican even at the low wages.
Then, there is the welfare cost, lower wages for business helps profits but hurts the taxpayer who must then make up the difference in welfare spending to benefit the Third World at the expense of Industrialized countries natives.
As the PM of Sweden acknowledged, Third World immigration means lower welfare spending for native. Less parks, more crime, because less police, less policing (Rotherham shows importing the Third World means Third World crimes go unprosecuted as PC constrains the police into enforcers of Diversity which means non-White supremacy). All that cheap labor means Industrialized nation taxpayers must cover the cost of the Third Worlders, including their many, many kids. While the natives can't afford to have their own.
This will all end in blood. Badly. There will be a moral crunch -- why have a nation (ask the Scots about the UK) when there are no borders, and NO PREFERENCE FOR ITS NATIVE PEOPLE at the expense of the foreigners. A borderless UK is a massive incentive for the Scots to declare independence and keep their money and welfare and culture to themselves, not be ruled by Muslims or half of Africa moving there and outlawing Whiskey, dogs, pork, and any and everything else Muslims or African non-Muslims don't like.
But more importantly, there is a money collapse. Cheap immigrant labor is hideously expensive to society. It privatizes profits for business using it, and externalizes the costs to the taxpayer. Eventually all income is spent supporting a massive welfare spending -- FOR THOSE WORKING BTW, at near Third World labor costs.
So you have a First World standard of living and wages converging downwards to Third World standards. Monetary / Fiscal collapse happens eventually.
Then there is the rise of nepotistic, racial-cultural networks deciding just to take stuff. The Wealthy are a big target but so too are the ordinary natives, now overwhelmed. Ask the Congolese how well inviting the Belgians worked out, or the Indians about the British. Colonialism always ends in the subjection of native peoples and it is easy to imagine White natives in Europe and America being made into fifth class citizens if that, or outright slaves/serfs, as a dominant racial group simply uses numbers to seize what it wants.
Rotherham suggest that the true costs of cheap immigrant labor is first, defenseless White girls from working class neighborhoods, made into prostitutes and assaulted, while the Police actively protect the whole thing out of fear of what the immigrants would do if prosecuted and arrested. But it won't end there -- the middle class would be next and then the gated, private estates of the wealthy who foolishly think that they will be different than the working and middle class.
People are just not genetically built to cooperate and trust on a large scale with vastly different genetic backgrounds. Monoracial societies are a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a stable and wealthy society because it rests on everyone being distantly related. Sure some of those societies can be a nest of scorpions or just failures. But there is NO ZERO ZILCH NADA NONE example in history of a multicultural society being stable and wealth producing internally, without a Saddam or a Tito or an Augustus or a Stalin to fill rivers with blood just to keep the peace, and those examples did not produce much internal wealth or technology -- just preyed on weaker neighbors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:35AM
> Just a bunch of garbage. The US Census reports that non citizen incomes rose 15 times faster than citizen incomes
OMG, a self-selected group of people so highly motivated that they left their countries overseas and educated enough to qualify for work visas and green cards saw a 6% increase in wages compared to the average 0.4% for the entire population, including the uneducated and welfare recipients. It is the end of the country as we know it!!
You've been suckered by bad math. No surprise given that your source is Glenn Beck's website. Anyone who takes their analysis at face value is probably too dumb to earn much more than poverty-level wages anyway., so yeah you do have a lot of to be fearful of.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:02AM
This is apples and oranges. It doesn't take a genius to understand why non-citizen incomes would rise quickly: anyone smart and educated and motivated enough to get through our immigration system legally is probably someone who's going to do well in life. But that's not what this whole immigration issue is about; just look at the title: "The Economic Case for Open Borders". "Open borders" doesn't mean having an immigration system where prospective immigrants with good credentials are favored, and uneducated people are kept out; "open borders" means just that: anyone who wants to can just come on in, without any regard for qualifications.
Sure, legal immigrants are generally an asset to their host nation, because most first-world nations at least try to screen applicants and take in the ones who help the economy. They also place yearly limits on immigrants. But that's not what open-borders advocates want: they want first-world nations to take in everyone, no holds barred. That's another issue entirely.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:55AM
Almost immediately I was overwhelmed by a suspicious smell when reading about Givewell.
Turns out I'm not alone. A lot of knowledgeable people are staying away from them.
This metafilter comment [metafilter.com] is good starting point:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:09AM
Frankly that seems to be nothing more than ad hominem. The shill question was stupid, but if that's the worst anyone has to say about the place then that puts them ahead of practically everybody else.
Reading about them on wikipedia, it says that in response to that incident they've set up a page that discloses their fuckups. [givewell.org] And I don't see any significant criticisms of them since - either on that page or out on the net at large. I'm sure they aren't perfect, nor organization is. But 8 years since that metafilter thread they seem to be doing a lot of things rights and very few things wrong.