Posts Tagged immigration

Immigration Ecomonics

I expect you’ve heard this big picture thermodynamics question before: You have a thermally isolated room with a refrigerator. You plug the refrigerator into a working outlet and open its door. Does the room get colder, warmer, or stay the same? The answer is that the room gets warmer because the total energy in the room is increasing due to the electricity flow via the plug. If you look at the big picture, it’s really a very easy problem.

So we come to the point of this post, the effect of large scale immigration on workers. The relevant law here is that of supply and demand, and if you increase the supply of workers, the price at which they are employed will inevitably fall relative to the price without an increase. Now it may well happen that if the increase in demand is greater than the increase in supply the actual price increases, just less than it would have if there had been no increase in the supply. So if you get a lot of immigrants who are increasing the supply of labor, then that will inevitably lower the price everybody is getting paid in that labor pool relative to what they would get without a change in labor supply. I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, I’m just saying what happens.

What sparked this particular post is a John Tierney column which would appear to be behind the Times Select Wall since the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a column the NYTs published May 30th today. I’m a fan of Mr. Tierney, but I think he stumbles a bit in this article as he’s pretty breezy with one consequence of large scale immigration (legal or not). And yes Virginia, there isn’t just one consequence.

First off, neither Mr. Tierney nor I compete in the same labor pool with the overwhelming majority of immigrants, so we are able to offer a bit more detachment than those who do. I admit its easy to be blase, even upbeat about trends that you don’t think affect you.

Secondly, Mr. Tierney makes the common mistake of confusing an anecdote with data. He offers the nice tale of a native American women (not to be confused with Native American) who loses her nail salon to the more numerous, lower cost salons run by Vietnamese immigrants. But she lands on her feet by going freelance and working for the wealthy of LA who are willing to pay to have someone who can carry on an intellegent conversation while doing their nails at home. So, despite the fact that a particular person was able to land on her feet, did the average wage in the nail salon business go up or down? Mr. Tierney doesn’t comment on this directly, but I think we are safe to infer from the rest of the story it went down. And I’ll point something out that Mr. Tierney doesn’t — the (better) job that his nail salon owner found existed before she found it; that is there were plenty of wealthy people who were willing to pay extra for in home nail care before the Vietnamese took over the salon business, its just that the salon owner was comfortable in her job and was not looking to make a change. But what about the wages of such freelance workers – have they gone up or down with the influx of American workers into that niche, displaced by the Vietnamese into the salon business? Again, Mr. Tierney is silent on this subject, but uses the anecdote to claim out that everything will be just fine for all the displaced workers because everything worked out for the particular lady he featured. What would the story have been like had this particular worker moved into the at home/freelance nail business several years ago? Would it have been quite to happy and upbeat? Or would she have been complained of declining wages due to the increased competition with her fellow natives who were moving into the business?

Well, I have no doubt that some workers will move to better jobs because they will actively seek jobs where they weren’t looking in the past. But I also have no doubt that some workers will not move to better jobs, and there will be downward pressure on the wages of those workers who remain in their jobs.

And whether you considered this a positive or negative affect might depend if you were a worker in the field, or if you were a consumer of this product or service who was seeing a decline in its price.

And this raises an even bigger point for me — I think we are better off as a nation looking at the issue, exploring the costs and benefits, weighing the options, and then devising the laws and regulations through the political process with representative government, than we are with our current system of immigration policy by default, with inflows determined by the immigrants themselves, because they aren’t looking at the big picture, nor would I expect them to. They are looking at what it means to them.

One of the problems with illegal immigration is that not only the immigration, but so much of the life of such an immigrant takes place off the books. And as Hernado De Soto observes, this life in legal limbo is what makes so many countries poor, and will certainly hurt our own nation. So for me, whatever else the outcome of immigration reform, I just want to see the illegal, off the books part brought back into the law, back onto the books.

A great American, Stephen Decatur once said “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong.” I’m going to say: “Our representative goverment! May the outcome of our representative government always be in the right; but the process of representative government right or wrong.”

Tags: , ,

President Bush’s Immigration Speech

I didn’t see the President’s speech last night as I was at my daughter’s orchestra concert. And then picking up my son from scouts. And then walking the dog. In the rain. Uphill. Both ways.

I have read the speech, and I think it is a dandy. Because it does everything it should, it will be condemned by extremists on both sides, plus the usual Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers. I’m not an immigration extremist – I don’t think we should just let everybody in who wants to be an American, nor can I find it in my heart to condemn people who have yes, broken the law by coming here, but not done anything wrong (IMHO) because they have come here because yes, Virginia, this is the best country in the world. And doubly so when we did next to nothing once they made it here.

I have only one question for President Bush: I know you’re plates been full, but what took so long?

The next question is what will Congress do? My prediction – not much slowly.

Tags:

Immigration In a Nut Shell

 For me, the whole immigration imbroglio boils down to three simple questions:

(1) how many people should be allowed to immigrate to the United States,
(2) what methods should be used to control immigration, and
(3) what should be done about immigrants who have already arrived here illegally.

Immigration has become a hot topic because it seems that we’ve had no official answers to these questions; because we’ve done basically nothing about those who came here illegally and have taken only the most rudimentary steps to control immigration, our de facto position on how many people should be allowed to immigrate is the combination of how many we are willing to allow in plus how many immigrants are willing to take whatever steps they have to in order to get inside the United States.

Now we can have a nice rational discussion about how many people should be admitted based on such factors as what that means to wages, what that means for demographics, what that means for social services, what that means for the countries the immigrants are coming from, how well immigrants are assimilating and the like. What that also means is that slogans such as “America is a nation of immigrants” don’t provide any meaningful insight. Hard data on the factors I’ve raised would be far more helpful than mass rallies or man in the street interviews by the press.

Once we’ve decided how the numbers compare between how many people we are willing to admit and how many are trying to get here, the proper control methods can be decided on. A big fence with regular patrols would be overkill if there is only a slight imbalance but may be the right solution if the imbalance is large. While its wrong to keep citizens from emigrating to a country of their choice and is willing to take them, there is nothing wrong in keeping out immigrants if the nation is unwilling to take them in.

The question about what to do about those who are already here is somewhat unrelated to the other two, although certainly we’ve experienced that lax enforcement leads only to greater numbers of people willing to flout the law to enter the US illegally. Should we simply round people up and expel them back over the border or should be they be punished before they are expelled? How many resources should be devoted to looking for illegals? Should employers be sanctioned for hiring illegals, and should it punishment apply or be greater if they employer does so deliberately and not accidentally?

The reason these issues have become front burner is that immigration has been large enough long enough that it has affected most every American in some way.

Tags:

Immigration: Mexico

Immigration has moved to the front burner in this country. Thoughtful people are writing thoughtfully – Jane Galt has a trio (is that a theme today?) of such posts:
Some rambling thoughts on immigration,
Unwanted guests?
More on immigration.

What I haven’t seen is what is driving the issue today – it’s really about Mexican immigrants and the large influx of illegal immigrants over our border with Mexico. Absent that large flow over a large border, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I guess nobody wants to sound like a racist, but what grabs people’s attention isn’t how many technically savvy people come in on HB-1 visas from Asia and India, but how many poor Mexicans are willing to risk death to live in the United States.

The stakes are high all around on this issue – for both Mexico and the United States. We really want to get the answer right — and that does include all aspects of immigration, including how many HB-1 visas are issued.

And let’s face it, its better to be poor in the United States than it is in Mexico. I can’t say as I blame people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. But we need to balance everybodies interests, and not focus too exclusively on one particular group.

We need to take a dispassionate look at what we want the end state to be, and then figure out how to get there. I’d start with a Mexico that poor people aren’t willing to risk death to leave. So our ultimate goal is a Mexico that has the political and economic institutions that are able to take care of all its citizens. Of course, we have to (1) survive in the meantime, while (2) we help Mexico get there. So that means that while we look at the range of options on how the US deals with immigration, we need to always be looking at the effect that these measures have on Mexico (and really all the countries that have people who want to get out). For instance, building a wall along the entire border – what are the effects on immigration, the effects on the US, the effects on Mexico – all these things need to be considered, not just one.

Tags: ,