That argument is fundamentally based on a notorious and notoriously stubborn, nigh ineradicable, piece of economic blockheadness and blindness, apparently all too natural among men. Which originated with Malthus and metastasized into a doctrinal cancer with Marx.
Yes, he is saying something wrong, specifically where you think he is saying something commonsensically right. No, this line of argument that you say is true doesn't happen to be true. Your continued inability to grok that a Malthusian economic theorem is utterly false does not make it basic economics, or obvious, or common sense, or true. It is not false because it is labeled, it is false whether the label is known and understood historically or not.
You acknowledge that immigration has been a net benefit to the economy. OK, how? What is the specific mechanism whereby an increased population of competing workers, *increases* the average net wealth of everyone?
It does. If it didn't, legal immigration on a vast scale would have impoverished this country, when in fact legal immigration on a vast scale made this country the wealthiest society in human history.
We didn't become the wealthiest society in human history by watching the average level of wages sink ever lower as the population rose. Instead, the average level of wages rose relentlessly as population rose. Why? What specific economic mechanism was (and is) at work?
Malthus and Marx, and the adage you sign off on in the article, have no explanation for this patent fact. Marginal utility economics (and specifically the theory of factor incomes) does.
I am glad we agree on political practicalities of opposing illegal immigration, and I am very pleased this horrible bill is dead for now. But to me it is at least as important that people actually grok the economic point, that other men working neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
"Thou shalt not covet" extends to thy neighbor's *job*, as a principle of economics, as well as morality.
Your continued attempt to assert an argument that doesnt fit continues to be unconvincing. there are concrete facts at hand that a 200 year old theorem has no relevence to one way or ‘other. malthus didn’t understand economic growth - he *also* wasnt faced with an economy that adds more immigrants than ever before in its history.
I will try one last time and be done with it.
1) One key argument is that the specific people who came here illegally are no better for our economy as legal immigrants. Since the only net change is in governmnet benefits then any free market lover should agree with that.
2) Another key arugment is that Classical economics is based on supply and demand and Larger supply of labor will impact wage rates to be lower than they otherwise would be. To assert otherwise is to defy multiple studies which have confirmed the effect. The fact is that other things being equal, if immigration were lower,the wages would be higher in certain industries. Doubt me?
Take a look at this study:
“• By increasing the labor supply between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4 percent. • Among those born in the United States who did not graduate from high school — roughly the poorest one-tenth of the work force — the estimated impact was even larger, reducing wages by 7.4 percent. • The negative effect on U.S.-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites, because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants. • The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status, but it is the uncontrolled nature of illegal immigration that makes that situation so untenable.Source: Jorge Borgas, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard”
Note the last point - illegal or legal, the impact is the same.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html
You can parrot Malthus all day long and its meaningless chatter. Malthus failed to understand that economies can grow and technology can advance in ways to utilize the same resources better. But Malthus was confused because *HE SAW THE VERY EFFECT WE SEE TODAY* in the in-migration of rural people to cities that created an “iron law of wages” for a time period... only when the industrial economy grew to absorb all the natural workers in the economy (of England at the time) and rural/urban populations fully shifted, did the wage levels rise in tandem with the labor market tightening.
If in USA version A, w had 0.5 million legal immigrants a year and in USA version B, we had 1.5 million immigrants a year, 1 million legal, and .5 million illegal and mostly poor lowskill workers ... WHICH WOULD HAVE HIGHER WAGES FOR UNSKILLED LABOR?
If you argue that the differences dont matter, then why the curious coincidence that in the 1950s and 1960s, when immigration was low, the “rising tide lifts all boats” was true, but in the 1990s and 2000s decades, a time of the largest immigration of our time, we curiously are seeing *no increase* in median earnings for non-college degreed workers. Indeed, declines ...
“Why do illegal immigrants force down wages? “That’s how markets work,” responds Cappelli. “It’s hard for the average person to understand that these are markets. If illegal workers left the U.S. tomorrow, what would happen? Some people think nobody would do those jobs. If that were to happen, companies would change those jobs, and wages would go up. Yes, companies would hire the people who are not necessarily doing those jobs now. This goes on in every labor market. There are no jobs that we can think of where, over time, work doesn’t get done. It doesn’t happen.””
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1482
Your argument on this point is not with Malthus at all but the data collected by Borjas and others.
3) Claim of “net benefit to economy” ... what does ‘the economy’ mean to us? “the economy” works as a proxy for the experiences of the members of the economy, but does not when you have large immigration inputs. Consider: If 1 billion of the poorest of the world cam to the US in short order, you would find that (a) our GDP would skyrocket and (b) “most people would be upwardly mobile”. Good? Not good for the 290 million already here and crowded out by higher taxes, poorer services and higher inequality. Even if the world’s net standard of living went up, the std of living would go down for Americans. it would be not different that if we up and decided to give our selves a 20% tax on all wages that was dedicated solely to sending money to people in a third world country.
Higher GDP as an abraction doesnt help people whose standard of living is notably lower than it otherwise would have been.
Thus argument about “benefits to the economy” such as the WSJ often makes miss the point - what’s the benefit to the economic condition of the American citizens here today? Will it help them? Or hurt them?
3b) “You acknowledge that immigration has been a net benefit to the economy. OK, how?” Your failure to distinguish between the subset of immigration that is good and the subset that is bad is the issue.
*SOME* immigration is helpful and *SOME* immigration, whether legal or illegal is hurtful ... moderate levels of immigration based on skill levels helpful to the economy - good. massive chain migration of impoverished illiterates - net drain. The main differences are net impact on taxpayers, since unskilled and non-workers do not ‘pay their own way’ through life and become added burdens on taxpayers also how they impact wider economy through earnings and spending.
4) “when in fact legal immigration on a vast scale made this country the wealthiest society in human history.” False. Our freedom, our rule of law, our limited govt created the environment for opportunity that lead to our wealth. Low levels of immigration in 1920s to 1960s didnt stop America from becoming and remaining the richest economy on earth. Indeed one can look back on that period as our hey-dey relatively speaking.
5) “What specific economic mechanism was (and is) at work?”
The specific mechanism at work that refuted Malthus was/is technology. Technology will advance however whether immigration is high or low. Immigration of low wage illiterates will hardly advance our technology, otoh high-skill technologists with PhD may help advance technology (and has in the past).
One can conclude from that and previous comments on good v bad immigration - we should have a simple and selfish policy on immigration: Those who can afford to pay a lot of money to get a green card (eg $50,000) and/or prove high level of skill and high earnings (so net taxpayers) should get in, the rest should stay away.