Neo-Liberalism's Addiction To Imported (Exported) Labor And Domestic Stagnant Economic Wage Growth. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14839163
mikema63 wrote:Captialism, if I am right about how eventually goods will begin to be so efficiently produced that they can not be profitable could do many things upon that time. Artificially reduce supply which would reduce purchasing power and hurt people. Concentrate all power into a totalitarian situation. Outright collapse. etc.

Like Marxists, you fundamentally misunderstand capitalism. It is not a system where profits are made by capitalists producing goods. It is a system where capitalists and workers must pay LANDOWNERS everything above what can be obtained on marginal land just for the OPPORTUNITY to produce goods. Producing goods has never been very profitable under capitalism. Only owning land (or other privileges) has, or is. Even Marx eventually came to understand this, though too late in life, and it is major theme of Vol 3 of Capital, which was published after his death. Marxists typically ignore it, and continue to demonize the workers' co-victims, the capitalists.
I want to push a policy package that begins to pave the way for spreading purchasing power through NIT programs, taxing excess consumption (consumption beyond say $100,000 a year as an example) which would reduce luxury consumption and shift production towards creating more and cheaper necesary goods that everyone uses. Creating a system that would allow (in some far future date) for the control of those goods that become so efficiently produced as to be unprofitable to other systems of control and distribution. To fund the development of science and technological progress further. To change our power grid to something more sustainable in the long term. Advance globalization and global institutions to help manage an increasingly global economy. Etc. etc.

Blah, blah, blah. You don't understand land, so you are on the wrong path. If you don't address landowner privilege, landowners will just continue to take everything.
I do not see capitalism as a thing that must be overcome but the most ideal system that is possible given the conditions of the world now which will eventually advance us to a point where it is no longer a useful tool. I see the next system as a conclusion of capitalism not a reaction against it.

You don't know landowners. They would prefer to exterminate all humanity rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust privileges.
I am not offering a program of emancipation because I fully believe that in either system someone will have power over you.

The privileged -- landowners, banksters, IP monopolists, etc. -- have power over us because they are PRIVILEGED: they own our rights to liberty. Remove their privileges, and they cease to have such power.
Whether it's organized by the capitalist who owns the factory you work in

The factory owner per se has no power over you. The landowner has power over you. The factory owner can only offer you an opportunity you would not otherwise have. The landowner REMOVES, and then charges you full market value for access to, opportunities you WOULD otherwise have.

See the difference?
or the beuro or syndicate or whatever that runs it makes little difference. You are still benefited or not by their kindness and your life within it becomes just the values vs cost of having you labor within that system. In either case you, I, and everyone are held tightly within the political, social, and economic system that we live in.

No. Our condition is that of slaves (net of government interventions to rescue us) specifically and only because like slaves, our rights to liberty have been removed by law and made into others' private property.
The only progress I can offer is the progress of production increasingly making goods more available and life easier.

It won't. The goods will all just be taken by landowners.
For all we are slaves to the systems we live under

See above. We are slaves because our masters legally own our rights to liberty.
at least capitalism can progress production to the point that overeating is a more serious problem in our societies than famine.

And fat poor people are so convenient for propaganda purposes, aren't they?
Half the country seems to want to invade NK over a war of words, a literally disastrous scenario for everyone capitalist and worker alike.

It should have been done when the USSR collapsed.
#14839488
Truth To Power wrote: Increasing the labor force, whether through increased participation rates or immigration, will have the opposite effect: production increases, land rents soar, but wages decline.


All economists accept the fact that immigration drives down wages and displaces American workers, nobody disputes this. The dispute is over the claim that the displaced workers are finding better higher paying jobs. The reality is that wages have stagnated for decades, real unemployment(U6) is up around 9%, millions of Americans have dropped out of the labor force altogether, the wealth gap is enormous and growing, the labor movement is decimated, and most of the new jobs are shitty service sector gigs. The claim that mass immigration hasn't significantly contributed to all these problems is just asinine.

People want to pretend that mass immigration is the ultimate free lunch, a perfect win-win, but that's just not very realistic. Everything in this world has benefits and costs, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
#14839512
@Sivad Forgot you were in this thread, my bad. :eek:

It's not a bare assertion, you're just denying the obvious.


Telling me I'm denying the obvious kinda doesn't do a lot to convince me.

Institutionalized corruption in the form of state capture is definitely a major cause of poverty around the world.


I don't disagree, and my disagreement wasn't that corruption wasn't a problem, but that immigration (particularly immigration of unskilled workers to the US which is what we were discussing) isn't a driving factor perpetuating corruption.

Most societies are poor because their governments have been taken over by multinational corporations and enact policies that benefit those entities at the expense of the people and the environment.


Let's break this down. Obviously it is trivially true that countries are poor because they lack strong economies (by which I mean they do not produce goods efficiently and thus the population lacks purchasing power and an ability to consume goods at the same level as the west). Why that is is a very important question.

Your argument is essentially that multinational companies create a weak economy. I would argue that depending on the country it is their policies, governmental structure, resistance to opening to the global market, corruption of their government, and refusal to make hard choices that retards economic development.

A particular issue is countries with authoritarian regimes that aren't reliant on economic development and a happy populace to maintain power. Particularly resource rich countries that do not need an educated or well fed workforce to get at those resources. It's in this that I do think you have a point, because in poor but oil filled countries it has been common for western companies to provide the expensive high tech capital needed to drill and process crude oil.

However generalizing past that I don't agree, many African countries have been ravaged by dictators that simply leech wealth from the populace in a way not possible in a more advanced economy. It requires no special intervention of a global multinational. (this particular point of view on countries can be summarized by a particularly good video by CPGrey if you are interested
)

Now this is an important point I don't want to be misunderstood on. Policy of the united states and other western countries can definitely help or hurt the growth of local economies. However any help those countries are going to be able to do will be within the bounds of capitalist policy and will also require multinationals to bring in capital. Here it is important to note that the lower labor costs in these countries is also something that drives this, however over the long run the developing economy will drive up these wages.

These countries can definitely be taken advantage of, or helped tremendously, by how the west manages this process. However any help we do provide will always use this fundamentally capitalist mechanism.

Note here, that no where in my response is a mechanism for corruption to be furthered by immigration. Also note that I am not offering solutions that will radically help the populations of these countries in a year or two. These mechanisms are long slow processes and in places have been hampered by well and poorly intentioned top down controls. (many of my arguments about the economic crisis in Venezuela is essentially an argument that they hampered their own development by well intentioned reliance on oil and never diversified their economy and when oil prices fell that weakness caused massive problems).

To try and get back to the point a little, my argument is that corporations are on their own not a driver of global poverty, and indeed in many countries (particularly many in south east asia and africa) economic partnership with the US and the west have spurred a great deal of positive growth and a decrease in poverty.

I suppose a summary would be that I disagree about your particular narrative about the drivers of global poverty.

It has nothing to do with punishing people.


You may say that your goal isn't to punish people, but that is what you are doing when you stop them from finding a better life.
It's a pretty simple, straightforward concept that's easy to understand. It only stands to reason that if a lot of the people who would be agitating for social reform leave the country then social reform becomes much more difficult to achieve.


Immigration from mexico is at net 0, the poorest least educated citizens of a country are rarely the ones that push social change, and even if immigration were some positive value such that 1 in 10000 Mexicans were immigrating to the United states (a staggering immigration figure I'll point out) we are not in an era where they are powerless to push change even if that 1 in 10000 leaving somehow neutered the power of the other 10000.

The point is "simple, straight-ford and easy to understand" because it's overly simplistic an understanding. In fact I'd argue that the people who come here and are no longer worrying about food and shelter, get access to information, and get access to the resources to educate themselves, would be more likely to have a positive effect on social change by creating a population of better educated and informed people to fight to get their country back.

So when we take in millions of immigrants from one of these countries we are effectively draining that society of its potential for reform.


I disagree. Perhaps I am very dense but this doesn't seem nearly so compelling a conclusion as you make out.

There is a reform movement in Mexico but it can easily be argued that large scale immigration to the US has deprived the movement of the critical mass it needs to be successful.


Even if it were true that immigration deprived mexico of valuable revolutionaries I fail to see how you could just go straight to the conclusion that it is a critical mass of them.

Stress is what motivates people to take social action and demand change and to the extent that remittances mitigate that stress the movement is weakened.


This is a massive oversimplification of the development of social movements. Dire poverty and the stress of not knowing where your next meal will come from is liable to have the opposite effect on a movement. Education and information are vital to social movements. Resources beyond just warm bodies are required. There are a thousand other factors as well.

In 2015 Mexico received more in remittances($25 billion)than it did from oil revenues, remittances are now Mexico's largest single source of foreign revenue, so that likely relieves quite a bit of economic stress.


And provides people resources that could just as easily empower them to understand the situation and take action as make them suddenly blase about their own government.

I reiterate this point not because I assert this to be universally true but to point out that your conclusion here is hardly ironclad unarguable logic.

You'd understand it better if you gave it some thought.


I give lots of things lots of thought, I'm a rather verbose person and spend a lot of time arguing about these issues on various platforms and in real life. :hmm:

Movements need a critical mass in order to be successful. Most successful movements never have the support of more than small fraction of the population, so if a significant percentage of the most disaffected and motivated leave that will seriously hamstring the cause.


Again, this doesn't seem to be so cut and dried as you make out to me. Many mass movements were supported by huge numbers of people, others were made by minuscule numbers of people who were well organized. Yet others started out well organized and used that organization to spread awareness and grow the size of the faction. To boil down social movements into some kind of critical mass algorithm as if it were some physical force obviously lacks explanatory power.

That's uncharitable and a bit dishonest, I never accused anyone of lying. Academic capture is a real thing and you should probably not be appealing to academics until you understand what it is and its implications for the reliability of the soft sciences.


Then you argue what? That their data was wrong?

Your original statement, as I remember it your claim was that academics intentionally down play the negative effects of immigration. Which is certainly lying. I also don't appreciate being told that I cannot appeal to people who spend their lives studying these problems and the research they do and the data they collect.

I do not try and form political policy around philosophy or some ungrounded logic. I go with what they data tells me because my own inherent biases will inhibit me from having any meaningful positions if I simply ignore the clear data and research of the field.

Academic capture is the same insidious conspiracy theory nonsense that creationists use to cast aspersion on all biology research. Perhaps some set of papers is influenced by economic incentives, but the preponderance of economists, scientists, and various other researchers get their funding from a variety of sources and when the preponderance of the research agrees on a point I am not going to be swayed by some vague hand-waving about academic capture. Unskilled labor fills jobs that we have labor shortages in, and thus has a reduced to no effect on the prevailing wages of people in those labor markets, that is the conclusion of the entire field of economics and I will not simply abandon it because you have appealed to a vague force, it is the best information available to me.

"social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone." - Paul collier, professor of economics and public policy in the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford

Is he accusing many of his colleagues of being liars? No, he's just honestly acknowledging that his discipline is heavily influenced by various pressures.


Like I said, I'm not interested in the personal anecdotes of one researcher. Michael Behe says many of the same sorts of things about biologists to defend his position against evolution.

Does Immigration Harm Working Americans?

Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers


Linking me to media organizations, particularly organizations that play to left populist audiences that are anti immigration, is hardly convincing evidence.

That backlash is occurring across the developed world and it's growing every year in terms of both numbers and outrage, that alone is good reason to rethink your position.


I cannot simply decide to believe something I believe to be wrong simply because other people are racist. Other people being racist is not an argument for...really anything.

This issue is fueling the rise of the extremist hard right and they are now a real threat, so even if you're right you're still following a very dangerous course.


The same could be said about my desire for protections of LGBT people. Sadly for me I cannot stop being gay in order to make bigots less angry.

I will not simply abandon what I believe to be the correct and moral position because all of the sudden you've discovered that your actually a massive pragmatist despite being a socialist.

I know exactly what neoliberalism is and the damage it's done. Neoliberalism is the filth of our age, it's a frighteningly depraved ideology.


Yar Har matey, I've come to negotiate a free trade deal!

I'm sure it has nothing to do with all the cheap labor, that's probably just paranoid thinking.


Are you denying the importance of the hispanic vote in electoral politics? :?:
#14839620
Exit without Leaving: Political Disengagement in High Migration Municipalities in Mexico
As Mexico continues to democratize amid an unprecedented wave of migration, the increasing levels of migration have affected the political attitudes and behaviors of those left behind. Municipal and individual level data strongly attest to the process of disengagement among citizens in high migration municipalities from the national political system as a transnational community comes to the fore. High migration municipalities exhibit lower voter turnout rates, and individuals in high migration areas report lower levels of political efficacy, participate less in politics, and rely more on participation in local community groups than their counterparts in less migratory towns.

The Perils of Unearned Foreign Income: Aid, Remittances, and Government Survival
Given their political incentives, governments in more autocratic polities can strategically channel unearned government and household income in the form of foreign aid and remittances to finance patronage, which extends their tenure in political office. I substantiate this claim with duration models of government turnover for a sample of 97 countries between 1975 and 2004. Unearned foreign income received in more autocratic countries reduces the likelihood of government turnover, regime collapse, and outbreaks of major political discontent. To allay potential concerns with endogeneity, I harness a natural experiment of oil price—driven aid and remittance flows to poor, non—oil producing Muslim autocracies. The instrumental variables results confirm the baseline finding that authoritarian governments can harness unearned foreign income to prolong their rule. Finally, I provide evidence of the underlying causal mechanisms that governments in autocracies use aid and remittances inflows to reduce their expenditures on welfare goods to fund patronage.

Remittances and Protest in Dictatorships
there is growing evidence that worker remittances cause recipients to disengage by reducing electoral turnout (Pfutze, 2012; Germano, 2013; Pfutze, 2014; Goodman and Hiskey, 2008; Dionne, Inman and Montinola, 2014) and depressing support for incumbent parties among those left behind (Pfutze, 2012, 2014; Escrib`a-Folch, Meseguer and Wright, 2015).5 Further, Doyle (2015) shows that remittance recipients are less likely to support leftist parties because they reduce recipients’ support for redistribution through taxation. Being countercyclical, remittances may reduce economic grievances and dissatisfaction with government policies, leading to disengagement from local politics (Bravo, 2007; Goodman and Hiskey, 2008). Indeed, recent research on Latin America suggests that remittances make recipients less dependent on state-delivered goods (Burgess, 2005; Adida and Girod, 2011; Aparicio and Meseguer, 2012; Duquette, 2014), which can explain why remittances reduce incumbent support when these parties rely on clientelism (Pfutze, 2014; Dıaz-Cayeros, Magaloni and Weingast, 2003).

Remittances Dampen Protest
Two mechanisms suggest that remittances should reduce anti-regime protest: individual grievance and government substitution. Grievance-based approaches to contentious politics posit that economic or political deprivation motivates individuals to dissent (Gurr, 1970). Comparative evidence shows that poor economic conditions and relative deprivation are correlated with protests, especially in non-democratic and weak polities (Brancati, 2014). Remittances may thus discourage protests by providing families with additional (external) income that shapes recipients’ attitudes and consequent behavior. If remittances increase economic and, in turn, political satisfaction with the status quo, they should induce disengagement from the political system (Germano,2013; Regan and Frank, 2014).6 Similarly, remittances may insulate recipients from local economic conditions and, hence, from adverse government policies shaping them, prompting less political participation to hold decision-makers accountable (Bravo, 2007; Goodman and Hiskey, 2008).Barry et al. (2014) also posit –but do not test– that remittances mitigate protest by increasing the opportunity cost of challenging the regime. Indeed, existing evidence indicates that migrant remittances are an important source of income for households in many developing countries, resulting in less poverty (Adams and Page, 2005; World Bank, 2006 a; Gupta, Pattillo and Wagh, 2009) and more consumption and investment, including local public goods (World Bank, 2006a, b; Fajnzylber and L ́opez, 2007; Chami et al., 2008; Adida and Girod, 2011). Hence, countercyclical remittance inflows (Frankel, 2011) have a compensation and insurance function (Doyle,2015) that can demobilize citizens during times of economic downturn and declining government spending (Ponticelli and Voth, 2012).
A second argument contends that remittances reduce protests via autocratic governments’ policies. By increasing tax revenue from consumption levies, remittances may augment the government’s available revenue, thereby increasing funds for patronage to cement the support of its winning coalition.7 Even if not generating extra state-revenue, remittances may still allow governments to divert public resources away from public goods: by increasing households’ income, remittances permit autocratic governments to substitute patronage spending and repression for public goods spending(Ahmed, 2012, 2013; Tyburski, 2014). Diverting resources to patronage and military spending can increase citizen loyalty and improve the coercive capacity of the regime, which in turn reduce the opportunities for protesting(Easton and Montinola, 2014).
#14840047
The first paper uses voter turnout as a measure of decreased political participation but also notes greater participation in local community groups.

If a policy effecting voter turnout is now a reason to reject a policy for you, particularly when the reason is that people are suffering less due to that policy, then we simply have very different priors and can't come to any agreement.

The second paper relates to autocracies and also includes foreign aid as a factor, so it isn't relevant to Mexican immigration and it doesn't measure the effects of immigrant remittances by themselves.

The third shows less voter turnout but also less support for incumbent politicians. Which suggests that people support reform more not less when they have community members abroad.

The forth points out that the effect you claim for mexico is more relevant in non-democracies. Mexico is a democracy.

I'll point out that it is certainly true that immigrants to the US can become educated here due to greater economic opportunity and can and do go back to their home countries. For instance Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed is the US educated president of Somalia who ran on reducing corruption and establishing a stable democratic government.

Particularly in the case of Mexican immigration vast numbers of Mexican migrants return to mexico after having collected some resources to help their families. About a million returned between 2009 and 2014 completely voluntarily.

A number of democracy activists in Mexico recieved education in the US as well.

What you are trying to propose is an oversimplified generalization of immigration effects that only looks at the numbers that help your case but actively ignores the positive benefit on these social movements that immigrants returning to their country with a western democratic education and resources has.

The situation is far more complex than you make out.
#14840088
"high migration areas report lower levels of political efficacy, participate less in politics" You're conveniently leaving out the punchline there.

Mexico is ostensibly a democracy but in reality it's an autocratic oligarchy. There's a bunch of literature on it, go read it. Mexico is not a functioning democracy. Those studies are definitely applicable to Mexico.

Yes, there are some positive effects from emigration and remittances, but they don't overcome the costs.

What you are trying to propose is an oversimplified generalization of immigration effects that only looks at the numbers that help your case but actively ignores the positive benefit on these social movements that immigrants returning to their country with a western democratic education and resources has.


The free lunch you're proposing is extremely unrealistic, it's a fantasy. All you have to do is step back and look at the macro trends like widening wealth gaps, expanding state capture, worsening deficits of democracy, etc. and this rosy story of benign mass immigration with no appreciable downside just falls apart.
#14840106
Causes and implications of the current mass emigration process in Latin America
Although the emigration of a portion of the labour force helps the short-term adjustment of Latin American economies by reducing labour market tensions and improving the current account balance, the longterm implications give great cause for concern. In particular, the massive influx of capital through remittances sent by migrant workers to their families might generate a "Dutch disease" situation detrimental to the development of the export sector, while the brain drain might curtail human capital accumulation in Latin America, thereby reducing the region's potential growth. Consequently, Latin American governments must take action in order to try to control a process that could compromise the region's economic and social future.
#14840435
mikema63 wrote:Both sides tend to support immigration because we have a lot of Hispanic voters that support immigration. Not because it's some conspiracy to perpetuate corruption in other countries.


Not according to Ronald Reagan -
They [Mexico] have a problem of 40 to 50 percent unemployment. Now this cannot continue without the possibility arising—with regard to that other country that we talked about, of Cuba and everything it is stirring up—of the possibility of trouble below the border. And we could have a very hostile and strange neighbor on our border [...] opening the border both ways [...] is the only safety valve they have right now, with that unemployment, that probably keeps the lid from blowing off


This clearly shows that the ruling class is well aware of this dynamic and view it as a threat to their class interests, and that they use immigration as a means of preventing social revolutions.
#14840442
"high migration areas report lower levels of political efficacy, participate less in politics" You're conveniently leaving out the punchline there.


They reached that conclusion by looking at turnout from what I can tell. Granted I only skimmed the paper.
Mexico is ostensibly a democracy but in reality it's an autocratic oligarchy. There's a bunch of literature on it, go read it. Mexico is not a functioning democracy. Those studies are definitely applicable to Mexico.


There's a lot of people and literature that claims the same of the US. Theres a lot of people and literature that suggest socialism always results in oligarchy, or that capitalism does, or that the real solution is anarchism. I would be equally convinced of all of these positions by being told to go read it.

Yes, there are some positive effects from emigration and remittances, but they don't overcome the costs.


I disagree, and I don't really see what's left to say. Particularly since part of my argument is a moral one that isn't really quantifiable in a cost benefit analysis unless you assume the value (or lack therof) of my stance going in.

The free lunch you're proposing is extremely unrealistic, it's a fantasy. All you have to do is step back and look at the macro trends like widening wealth gaps, expanding state capture, worsening deficits of democracy, etc. and this rosy story of benign mass immigration with no appreciable downside just falls apart.


Many socialists would claim that those things are inherent to capitalism regardless of migration. Many left wing liberals would argue it's due to globalization and attacks on unions not immigration. I would argue that many if not all of them are the results of a variety of factors, some inherent to capitalism being let run laize faire, others due to deunionization, etc.

Continuously telling me what I believe is a fantasy is not the most convincing thing in the world.

Causes and implications of the current mass emigration process in Latin America
Although the emigration of a portion of the labour force helps the short-term adjustment of Latin American economies by reducing labour market tensions and improving the current account balance, the longterm implications give great cause for concern. In particular, the massive influx of capital through remittances sent by migrant workers to their families might generate a "Dutch disease" situation detrimental to the development of the export sector, while the brain drain might curtail human capital accumulation in Latin America, thereby reducing the region's potential growth. Consequently, Latin American governments must take action in order to try to control a process that could compromise the region's economic and social future.


Brain drain is certainly a serious issue, which is separate than the original discussion of low skilled immigration. The other negative the mention is that is "might" cause a "dutch disease".

Ultimately what these latin american government "must do" is improve their economies to actually have jobs for people. Of course the narrative will continue that it's actually the US creating these problems not the governments of latin american countries fucking themselves over, so I doubt we will come to agreement on it.

Ronald Reagan


:|

This clearly shows that the ruling class is well aware of this dynamic and view it as a threat to their class interests, and that they use immigration as a means of preventing social revolutions.


Ronald Reagan saying something in the midst of the cold war when mexico was going through truly massive structural issues, 50% unemployment is literally civil war territory and it stops being the same situation as the net 0 migration we have today with the country, on our border. Of course we didn't want them to have a communist revolution, on our border. That isn't the situation now.

We aren't dealing with a mexico on the verge of collapse with any chance of turning into an enemy state.
#14840455
Behind the scenes the political conflict over mass immigration has very little to do with humanitarian concerns or what's best for the nation -

The trouble is not, as the Democratic and Republican establishments allege, because of xenophobic and nativist bigots. Only a minority now favor sending every undocumented immigrant home without a chance for the hard-working and law-abiding to stay here while they apply for citizenship.

The problem instead is that the establishments of both parties talk in high-minded fashion but in fact act selfishly. Unfortunately, identity-politics elites and Democratic-party activists, along with employers of undocumented workers, do not support such a grand bargain.

Why not? Because Democrats and the members of the identity-politics industry believe that they have gained millions of new constituents. The more slowly huge surges of undocumented immigrants assimilate, the more they are likely to remain bloc constituents for particular causes and politics.

Some employers have profited from employing some of the millions of inexpensive, unskilled workers without legal documentation. The desperation of millions of undocumented workers drives down costs for manual labor, both legal and not.

Other employers do not necessarily want future legal immigrants to be selected mostly on the meritocratic basis of skill sets, or for those already here to integrate quickly into American society and move beyond low-wage jobs.

Mexico is also heavily invested in the present system of unmonitored immigration that has ensured it billions of dollars annually in remittances. Millions of impoverished Mexican citizens heading northward serve as a safety valve for political disenchantment over Mexico City’s reactionary policies. The Mexican expatriate population in America also seems far more supportive of Mexico when it resides far from it.

So Mexico would object vehemently if U.S. immigration enforcement were to mirror Mexico’s own tough immigration laws, which demand strict border enforcement and prohibit unlawful residence or employment within Mexico.
#14840459
Behind the scenes the political conflict over mass immigration has very little to do with humanitarian concerns or what's best for the nation -


I dissagree, and we are at point where the disagreement is about our fundamental beliefs about how the world works and I don't see how either of us can convince the other.

We fundamentally disagree about identity politics, about the motivations of our leaders, about the collusions with capital, probably about the basic mechanisms of capitalism, and I can't even imagine what disagreements we might have on even basic values.

At this point I'm not sure what we are going to continue debating on when it comes to immigration. We aren't going to reach any agreement as far as I can tell.
#14840473
The Immigration Safety Valve: Keeping a Lid on Inflation
More than any other factor, the state of the U.S. labor market has colored the Federal Reserve's ever vigilant outlook on inflation -- which is not surprising, since 70 percent of business costs are labor costs. Fed Chair Alan Greenspan has repeatedly pointed to the state of labor markets when justifying interest rate increases: as he declared recently, "There has to be a limit to how far the pool of available labor can be drawn down without pressing wage levels beyond productivity."

But the Fed has yet to tighten monetary policy substantially, apparently feeling that the economy is still not too hot, not too cold, but just right. The reason is that the large, steady influx of foreign labor into the United States -- coming from legal immigration, illegal immigration, and the temporary employment of skilled workers -- keeps adding enough new workers to the economy to ease pressure on wages. U.S. labor costs have grown at an annual rate of only 1.5 percent in the second half of the 1990s, compared to about 3.5 percent in the 1980s. Even as job growth has soared in the past year, labor costs and wages have shown few signs of accelerating.

So it's not just the obvious benefits of cheap labor that makes mass immigration so appealing to the 1%, mass immigration also greatly curbs inflation. Low inflation is great for financial elites but it makes life harder for working class people. Economist Michael Hudson explains:
When we say “people worry” about inflation, it’s mainly bondholders that worry. The labor force benefitted from the inflation of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s. What was rising most rapidly were wages. Bond prices fell steadily during these decades. Stocks simply moved sideways.

Inflation usually helps the economy at large, but not the 1% if wages rise. So the 1% says that it is terrible. They advocate austerity and permanent deflation. And the media say that anything that doesn’t help the 1% is bad.

But don’t believe it. When they say inflation is bad, deflation is good, what they mean is, more money for us 1% is good; we’re all for asset price inflation, we’re all for housing prices going up, and we’re all for our stock and bonds prices going up. We’re just against you workers getting more income.

if the economy is growing, people want to employ more workers. If you hire more labor, wages go up. So the 1% always wants to keep unemployment high – it used to be called the reserve army of the unemployed. If you can keep unemployment high, then you prevent wages from rising. That’s what’s happened since the 1970s here. Real wages have not risen, but the price of the things that the 1% owns has risen – stocks, bonds, trophy art and things like that.


And with mass immigration the 1% has an inexhaustible reserve of unemployed to rely on.
#14840476
Extremely high inflation is obviously bad. Some inflation is good. There is a middle ground here and it's a controversial one that the FED has to try and thread the needle on. It's a far far bigger issue than immigration.

Fundamentally, that particular complaint is born purely out of the FED's monetary policy having considerations for the capitalist system we live under. Which is fine for a socialist to make but I am fundamentally not for ending capitalism and I'm going to approve of those considerations. Particularly when the dollar is the foundation for a lot of the worlds international system and thus must be treated with caution.

The economist you cite is a Marxist expressing a Marxist position. He has a view about how the system works that I don't exactly share (though I'm definitely with him that deflation is bad). Ultimately, I'm not against things that limit inflation to a certain extent.
#14841080
"Finally, the highly credentialed economic experts at the Federal Reserve are out in force documenting just how costly the immigration-related actions of the Trump administration are. In a recent Bloomberg article headlined Fed Officials Sharpen Concerns Over Trump’s Immigration Policy, those credentialed experts expertly make the point:

Patrick Harker, president of the Philadelphia Fed, became the latest policy maker to call attention to the struggles of companies in finding low-skilled labor…The Chicago Fed said one manufacturing firm raised wages 10 percent to attract better applicants and improve retention of unskilled workers. A freight trucking firm in Cleveland reported granting raises of almost 8 percent in an attempt to retain workers.

There is no upper bound to the hypocrisy of experts. It might be a lot of fun to keep track of this over the next few years, watching the dominos fall and all those “immigration-does-not-affect-wages” experts fall all over themselves as they switch to proving the economic awfulness of Trump’s actions because fewer immigrants mean higher labor costs, higher prices, more inflation.

But don’t hold your breath for any admission that they were wrong in the past. They will instantly switch to the former party line the minute the Trump immigration restrictions fade into history."
https://gborjas.org/2017/06/
#14841126
George Borjas: So, to--so who knows? It's very hard to disentangle these facts. What I think is something that we economists have been guilty of is the following: When we teach trade and immigration in class, we always point out the models create these benefits and costs. Right? Even though the pie might increase.

Russ Roberts: Yep.

George Borjas: When you talk about trade and immigration in the public debate, public policy--especially with trade--you don't hear much about the cost.

Russ Roberts: Yeah, and I agree with you there. That's disgusting. It's dishonest.

George Borjas: And that's been a very destructive part of what we've done as a profession, I think. Because some people do get hurt. And people getting hurt, getting left behind and being ignored has consequences. Social consequences; political consequences. And, you know, we are in a world now who might be living through those consequences.

Russ Roberts: I agree with that. Actually, I agree with it very strongly. I think it's incredibly depressing how advocates for and against both sides of these issues don't admit to various costs and benefits, depending on which side you are on. Everybody's selling a free lunch.

George Borjas: That was the--thank you for saying that. That was one of the things I wanted to get into my book: There are tradeoffs in everything, right?

Russ Roberts: Yup. I totally agree.

George Borjas: And you know that immigration is one of those things.

Russ Roberts: I'm willing--even though I'm more of an open-borders guy than you are, George, I certainly agree with that in your book. It made me think about more than I have. Which I really appreciate. And it also reminded me of something I'm very much in agreement with, which is the tendency for advocates to cherry-pick data on both sides of this debate and avoid those costs. I agree 100%.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/0 ... jas_o.html
George Borjas of Harvard University and author of We Wanted Workers talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about immigration and the challenges of measuring the impact of increased immigration on American workers and consumers. The discussion also looks at the cultural impact of immigration and what immigration in the past can tell us about immigration today.

Before I got my computer I used to read a lot more[…]

Actually...what it means POD, is that we all know […]

Well it is somewhat amusing that people are frett[…]

This is such a stupid debate. And BLM is such a bu[…]