Yes, Immigration Increases the Supply of Workers...

By -
Many people opposed  to relaxed immigration laws note the above, and then conclude that advocates of such relaxations must not care about American workers.

Seem reluctant to mention that immigration also increases the demand for workers. Immigrants need houses and roads and food and schools. What is the net effect of the two "forces"? I don't know. But any analysis that leaves out either force is either dishonest or incompetent and can be dismissed out of hand.

Comments

  1. Lord12:05 PM

    Don't forget demand for goods as well. Good for sellers, not so much for buyers. Supply of goods, good for buyers, not so much sellers. How it impacts individuals will vary with their exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Goes12:47 PM

    Similar short-circuited analysis is made by proponents of relaxing immigration:

    *Immigrants increase both supply and demand for labor, so let's call it a wash. And they add diversity, so therefore they must be good.*

    With all due respect, Gene, I suggest you dive past these easy to dismiss one-liners and actually look into the analysis of the net effect you mention. For instance, labor (and the factors of production generally) are not always very mobile within a nation. If immigrants flood the construction industry and lower wages, no matter how much of their income they give to Walmart and the USG, the domestic labor market is hit hard and must restructure, and not always in desirable ways.

    This is all somewhat tangential to your post, I know. You are trying to highlight the analytical gap in a common trope. But I am challenging you because I have noticed that with immigration in particular you are hesitant to wade into the discussion being had by those making the best arguments for their respective sides. This discussion is more accessible than the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:04 PM

      "I am challenging you because I have noticed that with immigration in particular you are hesitant to wade into the discussion being had by those making the best arguments for their respective sides."

      Intellectual division of labor. I am "looking into" enough things already: I can't take on yet another topic!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more