Skip to main content

View Diary: True Immigration Economics (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you really are an idiot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If you want to assert the actual arguments without the citations

    What you're really saying is ..."If you want to ignore all the factual evidence so that my ignorant perspectives are on an equal footing with reality based evidence"

    My you even realize how stupid this sounds.

    It's the same logic used when arguing for creationism.

    •  So show me some "factual evidence" (0+ / 0-)

      I have actually addressed YOUR cited authorities and shown primarily that your interpretation of what they are saying is just flat wrong, or that the cites do not represent factual evidence.  

      Case in point:

      # JOB LOSS:

         Comparative Advantages and Gains from Immigration
         by Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis and NBER), Chad Sparber (Colgate University) April, 2007, (Immigrants have little effect on jobs of US high school dropouts. Foreign and native-born workers with similarly low educational attainment in fact compliment each other in the workforce rather than compete. Using forty years of data the study looked at the actual tasks performed by each class of workers to see what jobs were being done by native-born workers as opposed to foreign born workers.The study found that foreign born workers perform more manual and physical tasks, while native-born workers do tasks that are more language-intensive and interactive, and that native-born workers benefit from this specialization)

      This supposed "refutation" of micro economic reality is typical neoclassical pig manure.  The neoconomists would have you believe that the prosperity of "working class" persons is unaffected by immigration because the people that would have been disadvantaged will now specialize in supervising the immigrants. But simply assume that undocumented people would not have shown up and ask yourself what would have been the result.  Assuming the same demand for whatever was being produced, there would have been some combination of less production, or higher prices and, higher wages for the "working class". The false claim that "native-born workers benefit" is actually contradicted below by the exact same same bloviating nimrod neoconomist that makes this preposterous assertion here.

      But the primary "snake oil" in this one is the trumpeted gain from "comparative advantage".


      Comparative advantage is a macro economic effect that engenders no return to wages. The gains of "comparative advantage" are bestowed as interest, profits, and rents.  I wonder if it is even remotely possible that normal people understand this or have any real clue.  This FACT is one of the primary reasons that rising GDP has not been a boon to the working class (or even the producing class) and this is quite evident from observing the current Republican "economy".  "Comparative advantage" is observed between NATIONS, And it is NOT a positive wage effect. And as we will see later, the adverse rent effects act as a wage deflator even if nominal wages remain flat.  There are more jobs but there are more people looking for jobs.

      Comparative Advantage  is pretty well described.  It is a gain from trade and not a gain to "workers" unless the owners of the means of production CHOOSE to make it so.  And if there is ample competition for jobs due to an influx of people then this increase in wage is not going to happen.  What part of "water is wet" do you have a problem with?

      Then later this same person contradicts himeslf and that seems to just slide right by you:

         # WAGES

         Task Specialization, Comparative Advantages, and the Effects of Immigration on Wages, by Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis and NBER), Chad Sparber (Colgate University). August 2007, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13389 (Looking at data for the 50 US states (plus the District of Columbia) from 1960 to 2000 the report shows that foreign-born workers specialize in occupations that require manual tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and building. Immigration causes natives — who have a better understanding of local networks, rules, customs, and language — to pursue jobs requiring interactive tasks such as coordinating, organizing, and communicating. Simulations show that this increased specialization mitigated negative wage consequences of immigration for less-educated native-born workers, especially in states with large immigration flows.)

      I wonder if folks understand the meaning of the word "mitigated" or if they even bother to account for the context in which it has been used here.  This bloviation says that the American workers would have been worse off with the arrival of the additional competition for wages had specialization not taken place.  It is tacitly admitted here that the adverse effects of the enlarged labor pool were SOFTENED due to "specialization".  I have already informed you that "comparative advantage" is a return to rent and profit and NOT a return to wages. Further, average wages are not a metric that can be employed to assess the micro-economic effects at the low end.  As CEO wages increase astronomically the "average" wage will rise even though the wages on the low end are stagnant or slightly falling. There is also the indiscriminate translation of rent into profit and wages by the aggregating neoclassical people that allows them to present wage claims at the top that are actually inflated by economic rent.

      Here your most quoted "wonk" admits that wage consequences of the influx of labor are negative, or do you not understnd the english lanquage?  What part of "Simulations show that this increased specialization mitigated negative wage consequences of immigration for less-educated native-born workers, especially in states with large immigration flows." are you having a problem with?

      I then went on to describe the adverse effects of rent on the "working class".  What part of "the working class pays rent and the owning class collects it" do you have a probem with.

      The problem we have here is that you don't understand what YOUR cited persons are saying.  And you are hanging your lack of understanding of what you cite on ME.

      I admittedly go further than that and claim that these cited statements are purposefully misleading and they are DESIGNED  to be misleading by the people who make them. But just leave that charge asside and address the actual data as opposed to all an indictment for not supplying a bunch of academic citations. I do not need to supply academic credentials to parse what these people are saying.  It is simple English. What do you have to say about my claim that you have misinterpreted these cites?

      "I know no safe depository for the ultimate power of society but the people themselves" -- Jefferson

      by TheTrucker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why does Nightprowlkitty, give +1 for name call (0+ / 0-)

      (I am being called an "idiot" by Duke) While I get a -1 for asking Duke to make his own arguments?

      I have no idea what economic credentials Nightprowlkitty might have, but that isn't the point.

      I want an answer to the actual question I have asked about why I get a -1 and Duke gets a +1 in the exchange above.  And BTW, Nightprowlkitty, when I call someone a liar it is because they lied.  Normally it is a lie about something I have supposedly said and didn't, or a claim that I have taken some position that I have never taken.  If anyone feels that I have used the term erroneously then show me the place that I did it.  If I was wrong I will do what I can to set it right.  But I am not going to stand still for people intentionally mischaracterizing my position or lying about what I have said.

      When Duke Posts crap about the position of the rightards that are NOT about the issue of wages (e.g. racsism etc.) in an attemt to tar me with that Republican shit, that is mischaracterization and lying.

      "I know no safe depository for the ultimate power of society but the people themselves" -- Jefferson

      by TheTrucker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Economy (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site