Why Ruin the World's Best Anti-Poverty Program

Tech Central Station ^ | 25 May 2006 | Alex Tabarrok

[Torie]

Immigration makes immigrants much better off. In the normal debate this fact is not considered to be of great importance -- who cares about them? But economists tend not to count some people as worth more than others, especially not if the difference is something so random as where a person was born.

Clearly the wretched of the earth, would all be better off repairing to the Fruited Plain. If only it were all that simple. It isn't. The article is a gentle polemic, and observes in passing the stagnation to mild minus in low skilled wages on the Fruited Plain. But that too will pass in time. Of course in time, the low skilled workers on the Fruited Plain will be dead. All must pass, in time.

[Lancey Howard]

The author doesn't say how many economists were surveyed.

But as far as the two economists who were named, the leftist Democrat goofball naturally wants to add as many ignorant and illiterate voters to the Democrat rolls as possible, and the Republican Bush guy wants to reflect his boss's soft stance on illegal aliens. It's not surprising that they agree.

[Donald Meaker]

Great post!

If it wasn't for the Irish Immigrants, we wouldn't have had Andrew Jackson, or Ronald Reagan (or Kennedy for that matter). If it wasn't for the German immigrants we wouldn't have Eisenhower, or Nimitz. The Irish left an ossified society, riven by class and religion. The Germans left an ossified society, riven by class, religion, and constrained by socialism, and militarism.

The Irish left the bad aspects of their society behind them, but contributed to our culture. So did the Germans.

Why should the Mexicans be different?

[VOA]

Looks like the fact-checker was snoozing:

Why do economists think more favorably of immigration than the general public?
I think there are three four reasons: theory, empirical research,
and ethics and sufficient bankroll to never have to really
be economically challenged by a tsunami of illegal immigrants.

There, that's better.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"More low-skilled workers mean lower prices for services such as day care or dry cleaning and this means that higher skilled Americans can spend more time doing the jobs at which they are most productive."

I'm no economist so I'm asking - Is this a serious economic argument for favoring low skilled immigration?

"Borjas acknowledges that his figure is probably on the high side as it doesn't take into account increases in the capital stock brought about by immigration"

Again, I'm no economist so could someone please explain the "capital stock" of the unskilled immigrant mentioned here.

[TASMANIANRED]

What part of rule of law escapes you.

Immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy hit the deck running.

They worked their butts off, made sure their children learned English and became Americans as soon as possible.

Immigrants from Mexico, while some may be hard workers, enroll for welfare, seek free health care, protection for their criminality and commit an exorbitant amount of crime.

They are not becoming Americans at any great rate.

Comparing the European Immigrants to Mexican is to compare an apple to an apple borer worm.

[Torie]

so could someone please explain the "capital stock" of the unskilled immigrant mentioned here.

Immigrants generate profits, and the profits increase the capital stock. Of course, a more salient figure, is the per capita capital stock, when it comes to standard of living.

[Texas Old Dude]

"Why ruin the world's best anti-poverty program?"
"......16.6 billion dollars sent back to Mexico"

"Total cost to American taxpayers, about $32 billion a year we pay the cost of illegal immigration. When this study was done, the population of illegals in the United States was about 5 million. Now the population has doubled, and the costs have more than doubled."

http://www.house.gov/poe/remarks/immigration71205.htm

Let's see 32 x 2 = 64+ billion, maybe it is not the "world's best anti-poverty program" what say we send them home, with an irrevocable agreement to give them 16.6 billion dollars, thus saving the tax payers about 75%?

[WOSG]

Arrrrgggg .... Talking about immigration as one blob, without distinguishing between *legal* and *illegal* immigration, is very frustrating.

We are debating about whether we will have a functioning system of immigration at all, with option A being "Enforce the law" and option B being "amnesty the lawbreakers".

This is not about whether immigration (legal) is good.
It's about whether the US gets to decide who comes in or whether the gatescrashers decided who stays.
Thus, the difference between legal and illegal immigration is crucial.

Sen Talent's excellent speech on the Senate bill:

http://cboldt.blogspot.com/2006/05/senator-talent-on-s2611.html

[JerseyHighlander]

To answer your first question, in general it's called the Optimal Employment Theory. If you leave every free to find their optimal employment by keeping labor markets free of restrictions on risk taking, and can accept a ~5% unemployment rate to account for those in transitions, the individuals and the economy as a whole will both benefit.

There are severe limitations when projected at a national and not global level though, i.e. individuals are actually competing against everyone in their profession the world over in certain fields, allowing only sub optimal career development, when this happens, people agitate about immigrants and outsourcing. When an influx of immigrants, as stated in the article, allows a janitor to rise up above his level of competence to be a manager over 20 immigrant janitors paid minimum wage or lower, it creates a ripple efect locally and other higher than min. wage janitors either hire their own immigrant cleaning crews or are forced to accept the lower wages or seek other employment. Economists in general believe there is equal oppurtunity, not equal outcomes, and the janitors who lose jobs are "increasing economic efficiency." Of course, Tenured Econ professor jobs aren't under wage pressure from immigrant Econ professors. Yet.

[aquila48]

"Why should the Mexicans be different?"

How many ILLEGAL german, irish, italian, etc. cut in front of the line coming over?

Did we have bilingual education and services for them? Did they demand it?

Did they ever threaten to secede and form a separate country in the parts of the US where they concentrated? Did they refuse to learn our language and customs?

Did they overrun our hospitals, schools, social services to the breaking point??

[Lurker]

If you laid every economist on the planet end to end they wouldn't reach an conclusion.

L

[WOSG]

ARRRRGHHHH! Can we QUIT with the fake Pollyanna speeches about how great someone's immigrant grandpa was.

America today has 1+ million immigrants each year, legally, and maybe 500,000 illegal immigrants coming each year.
Legal immigration has happened, is happening, will happen.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING AGAINST LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

The question for America today is this:
- Do we have an immigration system where WE get to decide who becomes an American through a system of laws?
- OR, Do we hae an immigration system where visa-overstayers and border-crossing lawbreakers get to decide who lives in USA?


"Why should the Mexicans be different?"

They dont HAVE to be different.
They JUST have to come here LEGALLY.

They JUST have to want to be AMERICANS.
(Those Mexican flags at the rallies kond of had me wondering).

[Plutarch]

Hmmmm...his piece is curiously mute on the public cost of the upkeep of these widgets, er, immigrants. Sorta shoots the hole economic boon theory when the widgets draw huge public subsidies.

[Cobra64]

Where have you been? Ever heard of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

[rmlew]

Do you have any idea how far to the left Irish and German immigrants brought this country.
Get a map of 19th century settlement patterns and overlays these with Congressional elections 20 years later. The midwest progressives represented the German and Scandinavian immigrants.

If it wasn't for the Irish Immigrants, we wouldn't have had Andrew Jackson, or Ronald Reagan (or Kennedy for that matter).
So they formed the Democrat party. As for Kennedy, that would have been no great loss.

Why should the Mexicans be different?
1. They are from a neighboring country.
2. Just as the Irish have traditional grievences with the British, the Mexicans dislike us. They hate us for defeating them and conquering the Southwest, which they consider stolen. They resent us for our wealth, which they consider stolen from them.
YOu want an analogy, look at the Goths and Rome.

[dennisw]

Tech Central Station ^ | 25 May 2006 | Alex Tabarrok.......

This website can be good but tends toward smart Alec libertarianism. This essay is too cute

[kcvl]

Alexander Taghi Tabarrok (b. 1966) is a Canadian economist and co-owner, with Tyler Cowen, of the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution.

Both Cowen and Tabarrok are professors at Virginia's George Mason University and fellows with the school's Mercatus Center. In addition, Tabarrok is director of research for the Oakland, California based think tank the Independent Institute.





Globalisation Institute
Academic Advisory Council

Professor Alex Tabarrok


http://tinyurl.com/nb2qo

[gaussia]

I wonder if these economists have taken into account the effects that mass illegal immigration has and will have on our social services, public education system and crime rates. The resulting drops in the quality and availability of decent health care and education and the overpopulation of our prison systems by illegals can't be very positive - particularly for our economy - which is what they are concerned with. We're looking at permanent, tectonic changes in our society with the bill the Senate passed. There is far, far more to this issue than can be reflected in what effects illegal immigration has on wages - assuming that these economists' models are even reliable. For example, what happens to the poorest and least educated Americans who can't compete for the crap jobs illegals do? They probably leave the job market entirely and end up either on welfare or in prison. Wasn't that Vicente Fox's rationalization for the benefit of Mexican immigration to America - that they'll do the jobs that even blacks won't do? What happens when we have an economic downturn and the availability of jobs for illegals (or their legalized counterparts) craters? Are they going to go onto the dole? Turn to crime? Accept even lower wages and live 20 to an apartment instead of 10? What happens when, after the millions of aliens are legalized, they decide they don't like how the government isn't doing enough to make life good for them (i.e., denying them their "human rights"), march by the hundreds of thousands in our cities, and frighten our spineless politicians into changing laws to benefit them at the expense of the rest of us and slowly chip away at what has made America great in the first place? What happens when the children of illegal immigrants grow up and see that they don't have the nice toys and comfortable homes that the other kids have and that their parents work all day long for a pittance? Will that motivate them to lives of entrepreneurship and enterprise, or will it put them on a course for resentment, hopelessness and crime? Their parents, who, after all, grew up in Mexico and Central America, had different standards with which to judge their own fortunes by. These are just a few things. The social effects, which will lead to economic effects, among other things of perhaps even greater importance, are what worry me. I would be quite happy to see my wages cut by a very large percentage if I knew that would mean that my country would not be in jeopardy. These economists address the issue with such smugness and superficiality (reminiscent of most of our Senators) that it nauseates me. This article is an object lesson in the meaning of the term "ivory castle."