But we don't agree. You think our immigration policy is keeping wages low. I say that is not the reason, but rather it is offshoring and automation that keeps wages low. These are both arguments based on the relationship of supply and demand, but I think you overweight the influence of immigrant workers and underappreciate the influence of automation and offshoring. I think it is a point worth making because there are implications about what policies to support. To wrongly attribute the effect to immigration would lead us to make immigration policies that will hurt us. As to snark and rude behavior, I apologize. I was annoyed. I try to be a good citizen, but sometimes I fail. I agree. I think its another way, maybe a better way, to formulate what I was trying to say. The takeaway is that workers (worldwide and in the US) have a pretty weak bargaining position vis-a-vis the employers. That's keeping wages from growing while the shareholders accelerate their wealth accumulation.
I think we do agree, Juan. We have so far established three factors that impact wages: Immigration (increase supply) Offshoring (increase supply) Automation (decrease demand) I think we can all agree that any policy that directly taxes automation is bad policy. We want automation. We need automation. We can scratch ideas such as "taxation of machinery" off the list. That leaves two factors and various means of addressing concerns from these two factors: Offshoring - taxation (i.e. tariffs); subsidies (i.e. domestic tax credits) Immigration - legislation (i.e. immigration policy reform); immigration enforcement (i.e. E-Verify). My concern with immigration is not that I overweight it, but that the trickle-down effect is overstated (i.e. their income is my income is your income is their income, etc). I think immigration policy designed to purposefully lower wages actually hurts automation and hurts the jobs created by automation.
No, not really. Immigration increases the supply of labor, but it also increases demand. Those immigrants want goods and services. So, I don't think they are pushing down wages, or if they are the net effect is near-zero. Their presence just makes the pie higher, to use a Bushism. As for what to do about it, I wouldn't do any of the things you suggest. Except e-verify; I don't know why that hasn't happened yet. And yes, I would reform immigration because it's a total mess, but not with the aim of reducing immigration which is what you're driving at, I'm still a free marketeer, so no to more tariffs and a double hell no to subsidies. What I ultimately want -- and I still don't know how to get there -- is to radically increase stock ownership across the population. If we're going into an era where the owners of capital take the lion's share of wealth creation, then we need to make as many people as possible the owners of capital. Then, if robots make working completely obsolete, we're still cool.
the best thing i can say is that, at least, you got automation right but the rest, ur merely publicizing ur less-than-adequate understanding of economics immigration has no impact on wage. eg. the Boeing co, which employs ~ 30K, immigration policies have no impact on the wage/salary of BA employee offshore labor is a cheaper substitute for US-based labor; offshore labor replaces US based labor, it doesn't increase supply
In this, apparent 'gilded-age', era you speak of, owners reap the lion's share of wealth because capital is cheap, workers are cheap, land is cheap, or other resources are cheap. George W Bush's "ownership society" a good thing for society. However, I do not see how it relates to this issue. That is especially true if people cannot afford such things. It's easy to say people should own their own homes or stock in the company they work for; it's another thing to do something about it so that they may afford these things. To say that immigration has a "near-zero" effect on wages seems either careless or indifferent. I could understand how you might be in favor of a decrease or stagnation in the cost of labor, but I cannot accept your argument that immigration has a "near-zero" effect. If that were such the case, why then have these levels of immigration? Wage growth just cannot be explained by unemployment levels alone.
This is my intuition, but I'm willing to be convinced by data. The problem (since I was just googling) is that it is now such a political and partisan issue that I can find scholarship that makes arguments in both directions. I'd have to educate myself a lot more on the subject to be able to discern the junk rhetoric from good social science. I don't think I'm sufficiently committed to this argument to do all that work. (So what's an anti-immigration person to do when part of the electorate chooses not to believe him and isn't willing to put in the work to give his theory a fair shot? I don't know, but there it is.)
Are Uber drivers counted towards employment numbers? Wonder if expanding low pay service jobs is key to a robust economy.
here are some empirical egs that blow ur facts-free claim out of water in team sports, immigrants are over-represented in MLB, NBA and NHL; on the other end of the spectrum, immigrants are under-represented in the NFL. over the past 20/ 30 years, the avg salary in the NFL has risen much lower than the sports leagues that have been over-represented by immigrants away from sports, workers in the Silicon Valley have been over-represented by immigrants, on the other end of the spectrum teachers in primary/secondary schools are under-represented by immigrants. over the past 20/ 30 years, the avg salary for school teachers has risen much lower than the Silicon Valley where workers have been over-represented by immigrants.
None of this is empirical (you provided no evidence). None of this has anything to do with what I discussed. Thank you for playing dumb, @adoo. Oh, by the way, there is evidence to show that American incomes have stagnated over the past three decades - coinciding with an uptick in percent immigrant-born population. Oh, and there is the whole "supply and demand" theory that is taught in every introductory economics course. Might want to pick up a book and get reading.
It’s been longer than 3 decades and it coincides with globalization as well. Japan was a big deal in the 70s and 80s.
