was written by Rich Lowry.
The key is stepped-up interior enforcement to cut off the jobs magnet that draws so many illegals here.
My guess is that the adverse economic consequences of shutting down this market could be larger than anyone realizes.
Sep 22 2006
Once one of my wife's law professors polled her class on birth order. "How many of you are first-borns?" Two-thirds of the students raised their hands. Clear evidence that first-borns are achievers, right? Hardly. An alternative hypothesis is that law students come from affluent families with few kids. Imagine th...
Sep 22 2006
Hal Varian reports on research by Jamie Galbraith and Travis Hale. According to Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Hale, much of the increase in income inequality in the late 1990’s resulted from large income changes in just a handful of locations around the country — precisely those areas that were heavily involved in the inf...
Sep 22 2006
was written by Rich Lowry. The key is stepped-up interior enforcement to cut off the jobs magnet that draws so many illegals here. My guess is that the adverse economic consequences of shutting down this market could be larger than anyone realizes.
READER COMMENTS
fiona
Sep 22 2006 at 11:16am
The market is taking care of part of it – housing boom is breaking up and all those construction jobs which used to be $15 an hour and were taken by aliens for $9 an hour will be non-existent at any wage…
Steve Sailer
Sep 22 2006 at 2:40pm
“My guess is that the adverse economic consequences of shutting down this market could be larger than anyone realizes.”
Maybe rather than just “guess” in line with your ideological and personal biases, you should garner facts on the subject and develop an informed opinion?
Lord
Sep 22 2006 at 2:52pm
But accurate, no?
John Salmon
Sep 22 2006 at 11:11pm
I’m with Sailer.
Visit Charlotte NC and see how illegals are driving down wages. A long-term argument might be made for open borders, relevant to Social Security and other old age programs, but it’s brutal in the short run.
El Presidente
Sep 23 2006 at 11:04am
Big ups to John Salmon
Povery and polarization ARE sad. No argument here. Progress takes time and costs money. How much of each do we want to spend?
This is where the economist says, “it’s better for everyone to liberalize”, and the citizen (more importantly, voter) says “I may not live to see the better days and may pay the cost in the mean time.”
What we need, and what I’ve been advocating for California, is a dynamic accounting model with regard to the economic AND fiscal impacts of immigration (legal and otherwise). That would create a clearer choice and an informed debate. It would also allow gradual, accountable liberalization of immigration policy including border enforcement.
Also, although it’s rarely linked to immigration policy in public debate, our agricultural subsidies have been wrecking Central and South American agricultural for decades preventing them from maintaining a firm agricultural base in their own economies. The US:Mexico wage differential for agricultural workers is something like 12:1. It’s the largest differential between contiguous nations in the world. In my opinion this is why they (Central and South Americans) opt for cash crops, like coca leaves and marijuana, that we spend rediculous amounts of money to keep out of our country. Given that children are inferior goods (technically speaking) we are, in effect, stimulating the production and exportation of immigrants by undermining their home economies. If we reduce demand for emigration in those countries we will reduce the incidence of immigration to ours.
I know I’m preaching to the choir on this one, but don’t forget to feel responsible while you’re feeling sad. If we’re responsible, there’s something we can do to change it.
Matt
Sep 23 2006 at 3:03pm
Jobs without productivity gain should be the phrase.
Economists always forget that a job with no corresponding increase in productivity is a net loss, it is simply another squirrel hauling walnuts. The squirrels need to haul walnuts better.
We need to be on the down side of the glacial cycle, simple having more squirrels follow the ice line north is now a net loss because we want the ice line to start its return back south, otherwise the planet will smoulder.
If the squirrels can head north and use less carbon for more output then fine.
Comments are closed.