Low-skilled immigrants: Economic burden or boon?

[theworldismine13]

Low-skilled immigrants: Economic burden or boon?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...b88858-ed5b-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html

 

[ogc163]

Good article,although I would be interested in seeing who wrote the Harvard article. My guess would be that it's George Borjas and I wonder why the writer wouldn't include his name. Based on papers I have read I don't buy the argument that immigrants are taking away a lot jobs from low skilled African-Americans, if they are the numbers are very small. Here is an article from 06 detailing the David Card vs. George Borjas debate http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?pagewanted=all , I personally find Card's arguments much more convincing.

 

[Chris.B]

burden

 

[theworldismine13]

Good article,although I would be interested in seeing who wrote the Harvard article. My guess would be that it's George Borjas and I wonder why the writer wouldn't include his name. Based on papers I have read I don't buy the argument that immigrants are taking away a lot jobs from low skilled African-Americans, if they are the numbers are very small. Here is an article from 06 detailing the David Card vs. George Borjas debate http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?pagewanted=all , I personally find Card's arguments much more convincing.

i think its pretty clear that they are taking jobs from low skilled less educated workers, the only argument is about how much, but even if its small i think its a show stopper imo

the current bill doesnt just legalize millions it basically doubles or triples the number of immigrants coming in for the next few decades, this will increase the overall size of the economy but unless im missing something it will widen the overall inequality in the country

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

who's going to work on our farms and clean our hotel rooms?

 

[ogc163]

i think its pretty clear that they are taking jobs from low skilled less educated workers, the only argument is about how much, but even if its small i think its a show stopper imo

the current bill doesnt just legalize millions it basically doubles or triples the number of immigrants coming in for the next few decades, this will increase the overall size of the economy but unless im missing something it will widen the overall inequality in the country

I don't think it's a "show stopper" at all especially when you take into consideration other factors that have much more of an impact on low skilled labors inability to obtain employment. I should also add that just because you restrict immigration does not mean that companies will react the way elected officials want them to (hire native born americans instead of immigrants) they could instead put more money into R & D/Automation and end up making no big blip in native born employment figures.

There are many variables that go into increased inequality, but based on what I have read over the years immigration is not a major factor in the increase or decrease of inequality.

 

[mbewane]

This argument regularly comes up, the question is really why are people not doing the jobs that "low skilled" immigrants are?

“Americans want more money, and Spanish will take less, but I don’t care if they’re white, black, Spanish or women. We just want good workers,” Smith said. “There’s a loyalty issue, too. The white workers want to leave right at 4 p.m., whether or not the work is done. The Hispanics will stay on until it’s finished.”

You guys want total capitalism, there you have it: some people are willing to work more for less, so too bad for those who aren't. Supply and Demand, can't have it both ways.

 

[theworldismine13]

I don't think it's a "show stopper" at all especially when you take into consideration other factors that have much more of an impact on low skilled labors inability to obtain employment. I should also add that just because you restrict immigration does not mean that companies will react the way elected officials want them to (hire native born americans instead of immigrants) they could instead put more money into R & D/Automation and end up making no big blip in native born employment figures.

There are many variables that go into increased inequality, but based on what I have read over the years immigration is not a major factor in the increase or decrease of inequality.

im not for restricting immigration, immigration is a good thing, i think the impact on low skilled workers is a show stopper as for as EXPANDING immigration, i think you can change the mix a little bit but the current legal flow of immigration is fine

im against increasing immigration and against amnesty and a mexican invasion, i think if you grant amnesty to 11 million people, 20 years from now there will be 20 million illegals

i havent read anything directly about it either but i just find it hard to believe that it isnt a factor in inequality 1) we know for a fact it reduces wages of the unskilled 2) we know for a fact that increased immigration increases the income of the highly skilled 2) immigrants willing to work for lower wages means more money into corporations and employers

 

[theworldismine13]

This argument regularly comes up, the question is really why are people not doing the jobs that "low skilled" immigrants are?



You guys want total capitalism, there you have it: some people are willing to work more for less, so too bad for those who aren't. Supply and Demand, can't have it both ways.

people arent doing them because the immigrants are bringing down the wages

i actually i do think labor should be able to move freely but only if the labor is operating under the same or similar legal system, in other words i think mexico needs to change its laws and minumum wage laws to match the US and canada, i know that is hard or even impossible any time soon, but that is what capitalism and free market requires

free market and capitalism doesnt just mean the us simply opens up its markets, a free market means reciprocal agreements between countries

so im down for a free labor market and that means mexico has to open up its labor markets also not just to US workers but to central america

 

[newarkhiphop]

people arent doing them because the immigrants are bringing down the wages

from the article.

Maple Lawn, the housing development where Alex Hernandez works, offers one window on both the economic calculus and cultural attitudes that have transformed many workplaces and industries that employ growing numbers of low-wage immigrants.

One of the builders on the site is Mitchell & Best Homes. Many of its laborers, such as wood framers, are Latino, and site supervisor Michael Smith says the reason has more to do with work ethic than wages. Even at $20 per hour, he says, few U.S.-born workers apply.

 

[theworldismine13]

from the article.

that's anecdotal and about 1 particular type of job and sounds like its a skilled job not unskilled

 

[ogc163]

im not for restricting immigration, immigration is a good thing, i think the impact on low skilled workers is a show stopper as for as EXPANDING immigration, i think you can change the mix a little bit but the current legal flow of immigration is fine

im against increasing immigration and against amnesty and a mexican invasion, i think if you grant amnesty to 11 million people, 20 years from now there will be 20 million illegals

i havent read anything directly about it either but i just find it hard to believe that it isnt a factor in inequality 1) we know for a fact it reduces wages of the unskilled 2) we know for a fact that increased immigration increases the income of the highly skilled 2) immigrants willing to work for lower wages means more money into corporations and employers

The amount of illegal immigrants from Mexico has gone down, so I wouldn't be too worried about an "invasion".

1) Only slightly reduces it, and again other factors are likely more important.
2) I have never heard of this, a long term strong correlation between increased immigration and higher skilled income doesn't make much sense at face value...but I am open to evidence pointing to the contrary.
3) Yes no one is denying that, their willingness to work for low wages is their main selling point.

Here is Bryan Caplan on Borjas and the impact on wages
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/03/borjas_wages_an.html

 

[mbewane]

people arent doing them because the immigrants are bringing down the wages

i actually i do think labor should be able to move freely but only if the labor is operating under the same or similar legal system, in other words i think mexico needs to change its laws and minumum wage laws to match the US and canada, i know that is hard or even impossible any time soon, but that is what capitalism and free market requires

free market and capitalism doesnt just mean the us simply opens up its markets, a free market means reciprocal agreements between countries

so im down for a free labor market and that means mexico has to open up its labor markets also not just to US workers but to central america

I've said it tons of times, "free" markets do not exist, precisely because, to use your example, the US cannot decide what Mexico should or not do. So the only way, MAYBE, for the US to have a "free" market is to seal off boundaries with Mexico. Which is impossible and...would make that market not "free", since it would be protected by non-market boundaries. "Free" market is a myth.

How can immigrants bring down wages if there is a minimum wage? Either there isn't a minimum wage, meaning "free" marketeers are happy and let the market decide (and if someone wants to work for next to nothing, who can complain about that, if supply meats demand?), either there is a minimum wage and...somebody is employing those immigrants (are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants?) illegally, i.e under that minimum wage.

Either way, if the immigrants are able to live and work in the US, it's that someone else benefits from the cheap labor. It's the same in Europe: no one wants to be the guy picking up the trash, yet they complain that immigrants "take away jobs from them".

 

[theworldismine13]

The amount of illegal immigrants from Mexico has gone down, so I wouldn't be too worried about an "invasion".

1) Only slightly reduces it, and again other factors are likely more important.
2) I have never heard of this, a long term strong correlation between increased immigration and higher skilled income doesn't make much sense at face value...but I am open to evidence pointing to the contrary.
3) Yes no one is denying that, their willingness to work for low wages is their main selling point.

Here is Bryan Caplan on Borjas and the impact on wages
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/03/borjas_wages_an.html

part of the reason why immigration from mexico has gone down is increased border enforcement and increased deportation, if you double the number of immgrants and loosen restrictions on visas there would be an invasion and not just from mexico

1) yeah that is where we disagree, to me "slightly" is enough to rethink immigration, at minimum at means we shouldn't increase the level of immigration

2) maybe highly skilled isnt the right word, but everybody agrees that the only people that suffer from increased immgration are low wage earners, other groups see increases or no impact so how would this not increase inequality

3) yeah so increased immigration means more revenues for employers and corporations, increased in wages for most groups and expanding economy and "slight decrease" for low wage earners, im just asking how will this not increase inequality since everybody is gaining except low wage workers

 

[theworldismine13]

I've said it tons of times, "free" markets do not exist, precisely because, to use your example, the US cannot decide what Mexico should or not do. So the only way, MAYBE, for the US to have a "free" market is to seal off boundaries with Mexico. Which is impossible and...would make that market not "free", since it would be protected by non-market boundaries. "Free" market is a myth.

of course no pure free market exists, that is obvious, but there are levels of openness

i dont understand what you mean that sealing the borders would make the us market free

i agree the us can not decide what mexico can do, but the us, mexico and canada can sit down and negotiate a treaty to control labor, just like they sat down and negotiated NAFTA to control goods and increase the level of openness, im just saying that ultimately that there should be a free labor market in the americas and just like NAFTA required all three countries to change their laws, a negotiated labor agreement would require all three countries to change their laws to match more

the only point im making is that i support a free market, but illegal immigration from mexico is not an example of a free market at work, its a highly distorted market and granting amnesty or increasing immigration doesnt help that distortion unless the countries the immigrants are coming from also are opening up their labor markets and their economies

How can immigrants bring down wages if there is a minimum wage? Either there isn't a minimum wage, meaning "free" marketeers are happy and let the market decide (and if someone wants to work for next to nothing, who can complain about that, if supply meats demand?), either there is a minimum wage and...somebody is employing those immigrants (are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants?) illegally, i.e under that minimum wage.

it brings it down because most people work for more than minimum wage

and its not just about a free market, there are negative social factors of having illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage

Either way, if the immigrants are able to live and work in the US, it's that someone else benefits from the cheap labor. It's the same in Europe: no one wants to be the guy picking up the trash, yet they complain that immigrants "take away jobs from them".

everybody in every country complains about immigrants not just the us and europe