The Road Out of Serfdom

What's the largest form of wage discrimination in the world today? To answer that question, Lant Pritchett, Michael Clemens, and Claudia Montenegro have compiled this handy chart for you:

 

Wage gaps between observably identical Nigerian workers in the United States and Nigerian workers in Nigeria (same gender, education, work experience, etc) are… considerable. They swamp the wage gaps between men and women in the US. They swamp the gaps between whites and blacks in the US. Actually, they swamp the wage gaps between whites and blacks in the United States in 1855. For several countries, the effect of border restrictions on the wages of workers of equal productivity "is greater than any form of wage discrimination (gender, race, or ethnicity) that has ever been measured." The labor protectionism that keeps poor workers out of rich countries upholds one of the largest remaining price distortions in any global market.

Who cares? You weren't planning on seeking employment in Nigeria anyway. The upshot is that even a very limited loosening of borders could do enormous, immediate good. No other poverty alleviation policy—microcredit, education, public health interventions, anti-sweatshop activism—compares with a work visa, even a temporary one. The Pritchettarians do the math:

• "Simply allowing one member of a Bangladeshi household to work in the US for one month (for a gain of US$835 in present value) brings a larger increase in earnings to that household than a lifetime of microcredit (for a gain of US$683 in present value)."

• "The cumulative lifetime effect of the anti-sweatshop movement on an Indonesian worker's earnings could be earned if that person had the chance to work in the US once for a period of about 30 weeks."

• "An additional year of schooling [in Bolovia] is associated with an annual wage gain of $205. The net present value of a lifetime of such additional payments is about $2250.35 which is about 21% of the annual wage gain to a Bolivian working in the US."

The paper is here, and my interview with Lant Pritchett is here. Another classic Pritchett chart can be viewed here.

Via Chris Blattman.  

Comments

[Shawn]

Thank you, Kerry. This is a great article and it's exactly the kind I would like to see more of in Reason. I've been waiting for one of these to come along before subscribing and therefore I just subscribed.

Also, as a pre-buttal to the inevitable lonewackoff post: fuck you.

[Joshua Foust]

Before you go on a great free trade rant, perhaps we should notice the fully black bars represent "observably and unobservably identical workers."

So we really have no idea what comparison formed the US/Nigeria ratio. What mixture of workers would determine what kind of ratio.

[fingal]

Not only is it not the responsibility of the U.S. to alleviate poverty in the rest of the world, but to do so by allowing the rest of the world to come here is downright perverse.

[Kolohe]

I'll have to read more later, but at first glance this puts up a big honking red flag for problematic data sets:

"1997 Hawaii/Guam v Micronesia 1.25 wage ratio between observably identical workers in spatially integrated labor markets."

1997 is a problematic year due the asian flu wrecking the Pacific tourist economy (which was already weak) that Hawaii and Guam depended on (and still do). Micronesia had not really deveolopped one yet. (I'm assuming they mean FSM, but CNMI and Palau also apply).

And Guam and Hawaii should not be lumped together as 'equivalent' even today, much less than 1997. Hawaii has 8 times the population and about double the GDP per capita. Additionally, the military contrbution to the Guam GDP (which is sizable today and growing) was at a minimum in '97. Hawaii was a net winner from the BRAC at that time.

[joshua corning]

So joe....

When can we expect that class revolt from Nigeria?

[Kolohe]

Ok, persuing the paper, they say they used the FSM as almost a control group, (a source country w/ no immigration restriction & official language english) and admit the data is kinda weak.

I see two issues with how they got that 1.25 number, which push in opposite directions. In general, there is about a doubling of income to FSM immigrants, but with some statisical handwaving, they say the real effect is only 1.25.

The factor that would inflate this number is they seem to disregard remittances, and assume in their PPP calcs that all consumption of the wage increase is where the laborer currently resides.

The factor that would lower it is they use an adjustment to reflect the PPP difference between FSM and the US *as a whole*, vice the difference between FSM and Hawaii and Guam, where most of the Micronesian immigrants reside (a non-trivial difference).

[Elliot]

Another howler from Howley:

"Even a very limited loosening of borders could do enormous, immediate good."

An increase in welfare, social spending and crime due to more 3rd world immigration would do enormous good to our country?

Why do Reason and it's acolytes even bother to pretend they have anything to do with libertarianism? Absent the snark, Reason would be The New Republic with bigger print, smaller words, more pictures and a leather jacket.

[MikeP]

Before you go on a great free trade rant, perhaps we should notice the fully black bars represent "observably and unobservably identical workers."

So we really have no idea what comparison formed the US/Nigeria ratio. What mixture of workers would determine what kind of ratio.

You don't have to go too far into the introduction of the paper to realize what "observably and unobservably identical" means.

In other words, wage ratios for observably-equivalent workers-Ro-are not the same as wage ratios for workers of equal intrinsic productivity who would be willing to move from one country to another; we call this latter ratio Re.

These independent calculations yield the remarkably consistent result that selection of migrants on unobservable wage determinants results in an observed US-to-foreign wage ratio for observably equivalent workers (Ro) of around 1.25 times the true ratio for equal-productivity workers on average across countries, and that the combined effect of
selection and natural barriers produces observed ratios about 1.5 times the true ratio for equal-productivity workers willing and able to move (Re).

That is, the black bars include a correction that tries to capture less tangible differences between those who migrate versus those who stay. The actually observable differences are 50% higher than the black bars show.

[tarran]

An increase in welfare, social spending and crime due to more 3rd world immigration would do enormous good to our country?

No but the increase in people working would. You know, the that thing people do to put food on the table?

[tarran]

Also, I find it amusing that you got a bunch of guys who are demanding that I not be allowed to do business with Nigerians and Mexicans, and these guys are claiming to be "libertarian".

Next you'll be telling me that the government owning the means of production is "capitalism"

[Shem]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, why wouldn't dropping the restrictions on migration create a corresponding drop in wages as employers suddenly had two or three or a half-dozen just as qualified people to do the jobs? Does not scarcity come into play?

[Naive political theorist]

"The cumulative lifetime effect of the anti-sweatshop movement on an Indonesian worker's earnings could be earned if that person had the chance to work in the US once for a period of about 30 weeks."

Isn't this because our government outlaws sweatshops?

[tarran]

why wouldn't dropping the restrictions on migration create a corresponding drop in wages as employers suddenly had two or three or a half-dozen just as qualified people to do the jobs?

In the short term, yes. However, in a free market, wagges drift toward the marginal productivity of laborers. Thus, if you produce $10.00 per hour, your pay will drift toward $9.00.

The reason for this is that the demand for labor is not fixed. The new workers are also consumers. They also have entrepeneurs amongst them who start new businesses. Their presence expands the economy.

[PFJ]

"An increase in welfare, social spending and crime due to more 3rd world immigration would do enormous good to our country?"

Make immigrants ineligible for welfare.

"Just to play Devil's Advocate, why wouldn't dropping the restrictions on migration create a corresponding drop in wages as employers suddenly had two or three or a half-dozen just as qualified people to do the jobs? Does not scarcity come into play?"

That is probably the short term effect, but once they make money, the aggregate deman curve shifts and we have to eomploy more people.

[John]

When the Nigerian government starts worrying about my wages, I will start worrying about Nigerian wages. Reason absolutely embraces a perverse transnationalism whereby the US government is supposed to sacrifice the well being of its own people for the greater good of the world. Fuck that. Nigerians can fix their own country. Worse yet, why enable Nigerians to have a bad government? All allowing workers to come here does is support their bad policies and give people less of a reason to demand change.

[John]

One other thing. The wages that one third world worker can send home figure assumes constant demand for workers. Yes, under the current system one worker could send home that much. But if you allowed free movement of labor, the wages would drop as the supply increases. People move to the US right up until the point that the wages and standard of living between the two countries equalizes. As people leave the the third world, real wages rise because of fewer workers and real wages will fall here because of more workers. Eventually the two will be close to equal.

[Citizen Nothing]

I think open borders is my line in the sand. Sorry, you folks agin' 'em just aren't libertarians in any real sense of the word. Who the fuck are you to tell me who I can hire and who I can invite onto my property?

Sorry, but on the way to work I heard an NPR piece on the misuse of identity theft laws to jail (Fucking jail!) Guatamalan workers in Iowa. Makes me want to go all John Brown on LoneWacko's ass.

[tarran]

Eventually the two will be close to equal.

That's right John. And that's why wages kept falling in the U.S> throughout the 19th century.

Oh wait! They didn't!

Again, in a free market, wages tend to move toward a value close to the marginal productivity of the laborer. That's why in colonial Pennsylvania wages were over 3X what a worker could earn in England right up to the French Indian war (when the Pennsylvania government started actually intervening in the economy).

[Jake Boone]

Also, as a pre-buttal to the inevitable lonewackoff post: fuck you.

This is an eminently sensible position, and one which I wholeheartedly endorse.

[John]

"Again, in a free market, wages tend to move toward a value close to the marginal productivity of the laborer"

It is more complex than that. First, regardless of how productive you are, there has to be a demand for what you are doing. I could be a wonderfully productive blacksmith but my pay is not going to match up to what it did say 100 years ago.

Immigration tends to fuck the low end of the wage scale. Wages for low education workers have been falling for years and large scale immigration plays no small part in that. We only need so many low skilled workers. The really that really get screwed on the deal are teenagers and people with bad pasts. Why would anyone hire someone just out of jail and take the risk of them doing something criminal or hire a teenager with no work history when you could hire someone from the third world with no criminal history and is older and more mature than the teenager? You wouldn't. Open borders totally fucks a certain segment of our society. Most people who write and post on Reason have neve wanted for anything so they don't give a shit because it doesn't effect them. They just want someone to come and cut their lawn cheap and the pleasure of feeling good about helping the less fortunate. Well, I am not down with that elitist horseshit.

[Warren]

Free trade is win/win. The more trade with more people and fewest restrictions produces the greatest wealth. Indeed trade is tightly correlated to wealth. Trade in labor is half the equation. By restricting the ability for workers to optimize their compensation, we're tying one hand behind our economic back.

[Shawn]

why wouldn't dropping the restrictions on migration create a corresponding drop in wages

You say that like it's a bad thing. In a competitive environment every drop in the cost of inputs is going to create a corresponding drop in the cost of outputs. Every wage earner is also a consumer.

Realistically, open immigration would have extremely uneven effects across various industries, job types, products and services. Some are already effectively open to worldwide competition (think of Indian call centers), others are not significantly affected by the price of labor (maybe wholesale aluminum) and yet others might not be much affected because the skills needed don't exist elsewhere or there are other effective restrictions to entry in the field (maybe lawyers).

Wholesale immigration restrictions are a form of protectionism and like all forms of protectionism, there would be losers if the protections were removed, even though the total effect would be a net gain. Boo, hoo. I just don't have much sympathy for people who use government coercion to protect their position from fair competition.

[John]

"Free trade is win/win. The more trade with more people and fewest restrictions produces the greatest wealth. Indeed trade is tightly correlated to wealth. Trade in labor is half the equation. By restricting the ability for workers to optimize their compensation, we're tying one hand behind our economic back."

Overall it is. But it does come at a price for certain people. If you had true open borders you would have very competetitive labor market. It would be great for employers because they would have virtually endless stream of workers to chose from. Don't like this one? No problem, fire his ass and bring in another one from Bangledesh or wherever. For people like you and I Warren who have skills and advantages that is all good. We get cheap products and changes are they won't be bringing in people to replace us. For a lot of other people it sucks ass. I would rather pay a little more for things and be a little less well off and in return have a really tight job market where anyone can get at least an entry level job easily. I understand that is not free trade and there is a price to be paid for it. But I think we would have a better more equitable society for it.

[Citizen Nothing]

Oh yeah. John's just looking out for the po' folk. (At least the po' 'mericans.)
Right.
As for me, I need me some wetbacks to sort my brie and stack my cases of chardonnay.

[John]

"As for me, I need me some wetbacks to sort my brie and stack my cases of chardonnay."

You just need that HB1 Visa guy who is only in the country because he has a job. If you fire him he is out of the country in less than a week. It is great, you don't have to promote him, give him a raise or in anyway treat him like a human being. If he doesn't like it, he can go back to wear he came from. So much better than hiring an American who can quit anytime. Or you need an illegal to come and work for you, who can't sue you claim workman's comp or have any leverage whatsoever. It is a great deal either way.

[Shem]

tarran & PFJ- Thanks

[Reinmoose]

Boo, hoo. I just don't have much sympathy for people who use government coercion to protect their position from fair competition.

Right-on Shawn.
The argument that "if we did this, some people would be disadvantaged" seems to only be acceptable in this country if the disadvantaged are those who are more wealthy than we think they should be.

[Reinmoose]

The argument that "if we did this, some people would be disadvantaged" seems to only be acceptable in this country if the disadvantaged are those who are more wealthy than we think they should be.

rewrite:
The argument that "but if we did this, some people would be disadvantaged" is an acceptable deterrant to a change in policy except if the disadvantaged are those who are more wealthy than we think they should be.

[R C Dean]

I've been waiting for one of these to come along before subscribing and therefore I just subscribed.

Reverse drink? How do you do that, exactly?

[Citizen Nothing]

Do brie-sorters qualify for HB1s?

[twistedmerkin]

I've been waiting for one of these to come along before subscribing and therefore I just subscribed.

Reverse drink? How do you do that, exactly?

I just puked up some alcohol. Thanks, Shawn.

[Citizen Nothing]

Was it chardonnay?

[Shawn]

Most people who write and post on Reason have neve wanted for anything so they don't give a shit because it doesn't effect them.

I started my career doing farm work, menial construction, fast food and assembly line work for minimum wage and less. In my current profession I have to learn a significant new skill set every two years or so just to stay current. You can take this "argument," put it on a skewer and stuff it up your ass. Sideways.

And speaking of Sideways, Citizen Nothing, I prefer Pinot Noir and ch?vre. I've always thought brie is French for Velveeta, but maybe I've never had the good stuff. Also, I agree with you about the line in the sand. It was the one stated policy from Ron Paul that disturbed me.

Reverse drink? How do you do that, exactly?

I've done some reverse drinking in my time and I don't recommend it unless absolutely necessary. I believe the Aussies call it a Technicolor yawn.

[Reinmoose]

I prefer Pinot Noir and ch?vre

Yes!

I'm totally salivating right now

[John]

"You can take this "argument," put it on a skewer and stuff it up your ass. Sideways."

With free immigration you wouldn't of had any of those jobs. So, I guess you can tell everyone else to stick it up their ass sideways now that you have made it. God damn it you want your lawn mowed for under $50 bucks.

[John]

Restricting is a form of social welfare. We pay higher wages and prices for things to keep the job market at the low end tight an make it easier for people at the bottom of the wage scale. I would rather do that as a social welfare program that write checks to people. The Libertarian response breaks into two camps. One is just to say fuck people at the lower end of the wage scale I want mine. The second is to say that the welfare of immigrants is more important than welfare of natives and if bringing in immigrants improves overall welfare at the expense of natives that is just too bad. I find both of those arguments repugnant. It is not like we are not rich as all hell and can't afford to have closed borders. A country with closed borders and a really tight labor market is a more egalitarian and just society for those in it than one with open borders and a brutally competitive labor market. Yeah that sucks for the Mexicans and Nigerians. But there is nothing to stop them from fixing their countries and getting rich themselves. It is not mine or the US's fault thier governments suck.

[crapass mcgee]

Is it really good to invite lots of people to come here in order to help their relatives abroad, and who will otherwise have little or no connection to this country, i.e. will not see themselves as "Americans"? Sounds like a recipe for chaos to me. But if you're for the dissolution of the nation-state and the creation of a culturally fragmented rat-race, I guess it's cool.

[Shawn]

And that's why wages kept falling in the U.S> throughout the 19th century.

Oh wait! They didn't!

Very good point.

With free immigration you wouldn't of had any of those jobs.

You know that how? Furthermore, how do you know I wouldn't have been better off? Even if I would have been worse off, what right did I have to deny other people those jobs?

So, I guess you can tell everyone else to stick it up their ass sideways now that you have made it.

No, I'm telling you to stick your emotional non-argument up your ass sideways.

[tarran]

Restricting is a form of social welfare. We pay higher wages and prices for things to keep the job market at the low end tight an make it easier for people at the bottom of the wage scale. I would rather do that as a social welfare program that write checks to people. The Libertarian response breaks into two camps. One is just to say fuck people at the lower end of the wage scale I want mine. The second is to say that the welfare of immigrants is more important than welfare of natives and if bringing in immigrants improves overall welfare at the expense of natives that is just too bad.

No. What we are sayign is that it is immoral for A to point a gun at B and say to him, "B, if you hire C, I will hurt you."

I know this can be a very difficult concept to grasp but that's the motivation.

I find both of those arguments repugnant.

Wonderful. You find the strawmen you constructed repellent. Big whooping surprise.

I on the other hand find your actual argument: that you don't like whom other people choose do business with and so you're going to threaten them with beatings, kidnapping, and even on occasion death to satisfy your desire for social engineering fucking repugnant.

You want teenagers to be employed, hire one then.

[John]

"I on the other hand find your actual argument: that you don't like whom other people choose do business with and so you're going to threaten them with beatings, kidnapping, and even on occasion death to satisfy your desire for social engineering fucking repugnant."

Yeah, that is a real arguement. Enforcing borders is threatening with kidnapping and beating. Come on Terran you are normally not that stupid. The agrument is very simple, it is better not to have a huge underclass and for job markets in low skilled labor to be tight. That way people have an easier time getting into the job market and moving up in society. Open borders are great if you don't care the very bottom of society and don't mind having a perminant underclass.

Maybe you are just too stupid to understand the arguement. More likly, you don't have a good response to it so instead say a bunch of stupid shit about kidnapping and hope no one notices. It is not a non-argument at all. It is just that you two dumb asses don't have a response to it.

[tarran]

John,

Enforcing borders is threatening with kidnapping and beating. Come on Terran you are normally not that stupid.

Oh that's right, because when ICE arrests someone for trying to sneak into the country, they don't lay a finger on them.

ICE agents don't handcuff people they arrest.

And, if ICE orders someone to stop, and the guy keeps walking, they won't tackle him.

If he stuggles, they wont electrocute him.

If he keeps struggling, they won't shoot him to death with real bullets.

Once they stop resisting, they don't lock them up in cages awaiting deportation.

Next you'll be telling me that the Birmingham PD didn't hurt any civil rights marchers when they set the police dogs on them.

Dude, you're losing the argument. Quit while you are behind before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

The agrument is very simple, it is better not to have a huge underclass and for job markets in low skilled labor to be tight.

Yes, I understand your argument. The only problem with it is that in a free market you don't get a permanent underclass - labor becomes incredibly scarce - read Benjamin Franklin's In His Own Words - he explains why.

Having concluded wrongly that open borders means a permanent underclass of unemployed, you feel that preventing the rise of such an underclass is worth the price of requiring people to get government permission to work. And since people persist in moving here despite your entreaties to stop, you are quite happy to use violence to engineer the society you want.

Maybe you are just too stupid to understand the arguement. More likly, you don't have a good response to it so instead say a bunch of stupid shit about kidnapping and hope no one notices. It is not a non-argument at all. It is just that you two dumb asses don't have a response to it.

John,

I've pointed out the empirical data that proves you wrong. I have explained the theory of why you are wrong. I have even pointed out that to get your way, you will have to hurt innocent people despite your desperate desire that it weren't the case.

Calling me stupid isn't going to change the fact that you are a social engineer who is backing a policy that is harming innocent people, and leaving himself and his countrymen poorer than they otherwise would be.

The only thing your little temper tantrums are going to accomplish is to make you look stupider.

[tarran]

Ahh fuck, I screwed up the tags.

[Jake Boone]

John,

If Pedro comes across the border, gets a job from Ned and rents an apartment from Larry, whose rights has he violated, specifically?

[John]

"The only thing your little temper tantrums are going to accomplish is to make you look stupider."

Terran you are the one throwing temper tantrums. Calling ICE deporting people "kidnapping" is just being a troll and beneath response

As far as data, even pro immigration people admit that immigration has a depressing effect on the wages of non-high school educated workers. It has to. You increase the supply of low skilled workers, the wages are going to fall. Further, we don't have open borders right now. It was a lot harder to travel to the US in the 19th Century than it is now. We also don't have an entire frontier to settle people in. Open borders with modern travel creates an endless supply of workers, something that didn't exist in the 19th Century. Lastly, even if you had "open borders" unless you are willing to let every criminal and terrorist in, you are always going to have an illegal immigration issue. There are going to be people who get kicked out for committing crimes who want back in or people who have bad backgrounds in their home country who want in. So regardless of the policy we will still ICE out there enforcing the borders.

I am not anti-immigration. I am just anti-open borders. We need to think about immigration and ensure that we look out for the welfare of people already here. You in contrast are just a fanatic. It doesn't matter what the truth is or fucking things would actually be without nation states or borders, you are never going to give up your utopian vision of the world. Good for you but you are not a serious person about these things and go have fun dodging ICE black helicopters.

[John]

"If Pedro comes across the border, gets a job from Ned and rents an apartment from Larry, whose rights has he violated, specifically?"

It has nothing to do with rights. It is about what we owe the low skilled members of our society. It is about whether there is such a thing as national sovereignty. People like Terran would kill off sovereignty. Of course he lives every day fat dumb and happy in a really nice place thanks to national sovereignty.

Maybe we should just say fuck them. If you are low skilled too bad. We should bring in as many people as possible to ensure wages are as low as possible and entry level jobs are always at a premium. That is a recipe for some people doing really well. If you want your lawn mowed for $30 a week or a cheap nanny life is great. No question from a purely economic sense that is the way to go. But I don't like that idea. I think we have a better society if labor markets are tight even it means I have to pay $100 to get my lawn mowed.

[Jake Boone]

It has nothing to do with rights.

I contend it has everything to do with rights, considering they're the foundation of both my country and my philosophy. I contend that Pedro has the right to associate with whomever he pleases, just like you and I do. Do you deny this? If so, please explain to me who you believe "rights" do and do not pertain to.

[Shawn]

It is about what we owe the low skilled members of our society.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Equal treatment by the law? The opportunity to obtain a quality education up to the age of 18? A guaranteed job at a certain wage is not one of those things.

It is about whether there is such a thing as national sovereignty.

Seriously, what does this mean? You sound like a politician or lonewackoff. If you are conflating immigration with citizenship, that's dishonest. Permanent residents don't get the right to vote.

Also, you seem hell-bent on maintaining an extremely simplistic, unimaginative vision of what open immigration would do that is completely biased by what the current arbitrarily closed system has produced. When you look at the number of people who are lining up for H1Bs I don't see why you think open immigration would only produce increased competition at the low end. It's a little bit bigger issue than whether you hire a Mexican or a teenager to mow your lawn. Try to wrap your brain around that a little bit.

[Jake Boone]

Maybe we should just say fuck them. If you are low skilled too bad.

Seems to me that somebody here is saying exactly that, John.

[jtuf]

The US should tripple its immigration quotas accross the board. That would at least let more legal immigrants in while congress debates about the rest of our immigration policies. Why won't Barr support increased quotas?

[philosopher]

"lonewhackoff"
is not all whackoff alone?

[claaswarrior]

these contries are poor bedcause threyh were raped thbythe white industrilaist pig nations for decades and then they were hit with trade sancetions when thye overtheryew their imperialist overloards. notw globable warlming will destroy thiese' nations environment andtheir econiemes even more completely and tall the west will sya is they should bemore tlike the swest and gie all the power to rich

[R C Dean]

Whoa, claaswarrior. Time to check your meds, man.

[MikeP]

As far as data, even pro immigration people admit that immigration has a depressing effect on the wages of non-high school educated workers.

As though timed to respond to John's claims of the harm done by immigrants to the wages of native low skilled workers, we have a new study...

Using our estimates and Census data we find that immigration (1990-2006) had small negative effects in the short run on native workers with no high school degree (-0.7%) and on average wages (-0.4%) while it had small positive effects on native workers with no high school degree (+0.3%) and on average native wages (+0.6%) in the long run. These results are perfectly in line with the estimated aggregate elasticities in the labor literature since Katz and Murphy (1992). We also find a wage effect of new immigrants on previous immigrants in the order of negative 6%.

So immigration causes a short run slight decrease in wages and a long run slight rise in wages. As prior studies and arguments have shown, the only people whose wages are materially impacted are the last wave of immigrants.

[classwarrior]

RC Dean:That's right, like everyone else on this thread you dismiss my arguments with a "he's probably on drugs" schtick. BTW I am not the same classwarrior that usually posts here.

[Jake Boone]

That's right, like everyone else on this thread you dismiss my arguments [...]

Well, it's your own fault for encrypting your arguments before posting them. We're not the NSA, you know.

BTW I am not the same classwarrior that usually posts here.

Then why not choose an original handle?

[argheg]

it's so inefficient to ship all these foreigners over here and try to match them up with 30-week jobs so they can go back home wealthy. much better to raise our taxes to such a point that the amount of wealth we're allowed to retain is equal to the amount of wealth the nigerians will have after we send them all our taxes. obama for prez!

on a more historical note, prior to world war 1 young male eye-talians and assorted other swarthy europeans used to come over here, do the farming for circa 30 weeks and return home to buy a plot of land with the accumulated cash. i am not sure those kind of jobs are available in sufficient quantities today.