Openness

Globalization Is Good for You!

New research demonstrates the amazing power of open markets and open borders.

|

How important is the open exchange of goods to the spreading of prosperity? This important: Since 1950, world trade in goods has expanded from $600 billion (in 2015 dollars) to $18.9 trillion in 2013. That's a more than 30-fold increase, during a period in which global population grew less than three-fold.

This massive increase in trade was kicked off in 1948 by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which began the liberalization process of lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers. As a result, autarkic national economies became more integrated and intertwined with one another. The World Bank reports that openness to trade—the ratio of a country's trade (exports plus imports) to its gross domestic product (GDP)—has more than doubled on average since 1950.

Immigration has also contributed significantly to economic growth and higher wages. Today some 200 million people, about 3 percent of the world's population, live outside their countries of birth. According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, 28 percent of all U.S. companies started in 2011 had immigrant founders—despite immigrants comprising roughly 13 percent of the population. In addition, some 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children.

All of this open movement of people and stuff across borders pays off in many measurable ways, some obvious, some more surprising.

Longer, Healthier Lives

A 2010 study in World Development, titled "Good For Living? On the Relationship between Globalization and Life Expectancy," looked at data from 92 countries and found that economic globalization significantly boosts life expectancy, especially in developing countries. The two Swedish economists behind the study, Andreas Bergh and Therese Nilsson, noted that as Uganda's economic globalization index rose from 22 to 46 points (almost two standard deviations) over the 1970–2005 period, average life expectancy increased by two to three years.

Similarly, a 2014 conference paper titled "The long-run relationship between trade and population health: evidence from five decades," by Helmut Schmidt University economist Dierk Herzer, concluded, after examining the relationship between economic openness and population health for 74 countries between 1960 and 2010, that "international trade in general has a robust positive long-run effect on health, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality."

Women's Liberation

A 2012 working paper by University of Konstantz economist Heinrich Ursprung and University of Munich economist Niklas Potrafke analyzed how women fare by comparing globalization trends with changes in the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), which was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). SIGI takes several aspects of gender relations into account, including family law codes, civil liberties, physical integrity, son preference, and ownership rights. It's an index of deprivation that captures causes of gender inequality rather than measuring outcomes.

"Observing the progress of globalization for almost one hundred developing countries at ten year intervals starting in 1970," Ursprung and Potrafke concluded, "we find that economic and social globalization exert a decidedly positive influence on the social institutions that reduce female subjugation and promote gender equality." They further noted that since globalization tends to liberate women from traditional social and political orders, "social globalization is demonized, by the established local ruling class, and by western apologists who, for reasons of ideological objections to markets, join in opposing globalization."

Less Child Labor

A 2005 World Development study, "Trade Openness, Foreign Direct Investment and Child Labor," by Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Indra de Soysa of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, looked at the effects of trade openness and globalization on child labor in poor countries. Their analysis refuted the claims made by anti-globalization proponents that free trade induces a "race to the bottom," encouraging the exploitation of children as cheap laborers. Instead the researchers found that the more open a country is to international trade and foreign investment, the lower the incidence of exploitation. "Globalization is associated with less, not more, child labor," they concluded.

Faster Economic Growth

A 2008 World Bank study, "Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence," by the Stanford University economists Romain Wacziarg and Karen Horn Welch, found that trade openness and liberalization significantly boost a country's rate of economic growth.

The authors noted that in 1960, just 22 percent of countries representing 21 percent of the global population had open trade policies. This rose to 73 percent of countries representing 46 percent of world population by the year 2000. The study compared growth rates of countries before and after trade liberalization, finding that "over the 1950–98 period, countries that liberalized their trade regimes experienced average annual growth rates that were about 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization" and that "investment rates by rose 1.5–2.0 percentage points."

Higher Incomes

Trade openness boosts economic growth, but how does it affect per-capita incomes? A 2009 Rutgers University-Newark working paper, "Trade Openness and Income-a Re-examination," by economists Vlad Manole and Mariana Spatareanu, calculated the trade restrictiveness indices for 131 developed and developing countries between 1990 and 2004. Its conclusion: A "lower level of trade protection is associated with higher per-capita income."

Less Poverty

A 2011 Research Institute of Industrial Economics working paper—"Globalization and Absolute Poverty—A Panel Data Study," by the Swedish economists Bergh and Nilsson—analyzed the effects of globalization and trade openness on levels of absolute poverty (defined as incomes of less than $1 per day) in 100 developing countries. The authors found "a robust negative correlation between globalization and poverty."

Interestingly, most of the reduction in absolute poverty results from better information flows—e.g., access to cellphones—that improve the functioning of markets and lead to the liberalization of trade. For example, the globalization index score for Bangladesh increased from 8 points in 1980 to 30 points in 2000, which yielded a reduction in absolute poverty of 12 percentage points.

More Trees

A number of studies have found that trade openness tends to improve environmental quality in rich countries while increasing pollution and deforestation in poor countries. For example, a 2009 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management study by three Japanese researchers, titled "Does Trade Openness Improve Environmental Quality?," found that air and water pollution decline among rich-country members of the OECD, whereas it increases in poor countries as they liberalize and embark on the process of economic development.

But as poor countries become rich, they flip from getting dirtier to becoming cleaner. A 2012 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics study, "Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Developing Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach," explored the relationship between deforestation and real income for 52 developing countries during the 1972–2003 period. The study found that deforestation reverses when average incomes reach a bit more than $3,000 per year.

These studies basically confirm the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis, in which various indicators of environmental degradation tend to get worse during the early stages of economic growth, but when average income reaches a certain point, subsequent economic growth leads to environmental improvement. Since trade openness and globalization boost economic growth and incomes, this suggests that opposing them slows down eventual environmental improvement in poor countries.

Peace

In 1943, Otto T. Mallery wrote, "If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky." This insight was bolstered by a 2011 working paper, "Does Trade Integration Contribute to Peace?," by the University of California, Davis researcher Ju Hyun Pyun and the Korea University researcher Jong-Wha Lee. The two evaluated the effects of bilateral trade and global openness on the probability of conflict between countries from 1950 to 2000, and concluded that "an increase in bilateral trade interdependence significantly promotes peace." They added, "More importantly, we find that not only bilateral trade but global trade openness also significantly promotes peace."

More Productive Workers

The economic gains from unfettered immigration are vastly more enormous than those that would result from the elimination of remaining trade restrictions. Total factor productivity (TFP) is the portion of output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Its level is determined by how efficiently and intensely the inputs are utilized in production. In other words, it is all those factors—technology, honest government, a stable currency, etc.—that enable people to work "smarter" and not just harder.

A 2012 working paper titled "Open Borders," by the University of Wisconsin economist John Kennan, found that if all workers moved immediately to places with higher total factor productivity, it would produce the equivalent of doubling the world's supply of laborers. Using U.S. TFP as a benchmark, the world's workers right now are the equivalent of 750 million Americans, but allowing migration to high TFP regions would boost that to the equivalent of 1.5 billion American workers.

Think of it this way: A worker in Somalia can produce only one-tenth the economic value of a worker in the United States. But as soon as she trades the hellhole of Mogadishu for the comparative paradise of Minneapolis, she can immediately take advantage of the higher American TFP to produce vastly more. Multiply that by the hundreds of millions still stuck in low-productivity countries.

Assuming everybody moved immediately, Kennan calculated that it would temporarily depress the average wages of the host countries' natives by 20 percent. If emigration were more gradual, there would be essentially no effects on native-born wages.

In a 2011 working paper for the Center for Global Development, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?," Michael Clemens reviewed the literature on the relationship between economic growth and migration. He concluded that removing mobility barriers could plausibly produce overall gains of 20–60 percent of global GDP. Since world GDP is about $78 trillion now, that suggests that opening borders alone could boost global GDP to between $94 and $125 trillion.

Better Job Prospects

A 2013 University of Munich working paper on immigration and economic growth by the University of Auvergne economist Ekrame Boubtane and her colleagues analyzed data from 22 OECD countries between 1987 and 2009. It found that "migration inflows contribute to host country economic prosperity (positive impact on GDP per capita and total unemployment rate)." The authors concluded that "immigration flows do not harm the employment prospects of residents, native- or foreign-born. Hence, OECD countries may adjust immigration policies to labour market needs, and can receive more migrants, without worrying about a potential negative impact on growth and employment."

In a 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research study, "The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States," the University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri looked at the effects of differential rates of immigration to various American states in the 1990s and 2000s. Peri found that "an increase in employment in a U.S. state of 1% due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5% in that state." In other words, more immigrants meant higher average wages for all workers.

NEXT: Lego Store Detains 11-Year-Old Boy for Shopping Without Dad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Eh…some good points but you leave out what all the Governments will do with globalization. My biggest concern – loss of individual freedom. You think individualism is tread upon now? Wait til there is no place to go(but space=libertarian nirvana). Besides which there is all ready a push in this direction and the freedom lovers are not the ones pushing it, progressives/communists/etc. are.

    1. That word. Globalization. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      1. My bad, thought he was talking about globalizing…one big happy government.

  2. OT: Apparently David Brooks has not gotten the message that we’re in a LIBERTARIAN moment…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05…..paper&_r=0

    Enter the derp! Revel in the derp! Thrill to the DERP!

  3. Less Child Labor

    Turn in your libertarian card RIGHT fucking now, Bailey!!

    *points at table to the side – glares at Bailey*

    1. I haven’t RTFA yet, but I assume that what he means by less child labor is that, as the free market grinds the price of labor down to zero, children’s only value will be as capital — e.g., used to line smokestacks.

      1. +1 carbon credit

  4. So basically all the leftist claims are lies?

    Exposing their ignorance, that’s gotta be triggering, right?

  5. “But as soon as she trades the hellhole of Mogadishu for the comparative paradise of Minneapolis, she can immediately take advantage of the higher American TFP to produce vastly more. Multiply that by the hundreds of millions still stuck in low-productivity countries.”

    Have we considered that the comparative paradise of Minneapolis very well could start looking more and more like Mogadishu if the borders were actually open to the hundreds of millions?

    1. There is a feedback loop. There aren’t hundreds of millions of jobs available in Minneapolis so eventually the incentives for moving there will decrease in accordance with demand.

      1. That’s definitely true, but it may not matter too much. Even being homeless in the US is an improvement over living in many countries.

        Take LA for example, it’s declined horribly over the years, yet it’s still an improvement over most Mexican cities.

      2. That assumes that the only reason somebody would move from a blood-soaked hellhole to Minneapolis is for a job.

        And that enough immigrants to form a cultural critical mass won’t prove resistant to the assimilation that is necessary to access that higher American TFP.

        Fer cripes sake, look at Europe. They have imported mass quantities of cheap labor. Are they better off for it, including not just the vetted millionaires but the alienated and disenfranchised insular communities that spawn no-go zones and rape gangs?

        Can mass immigration be beneficial? Sure.

        Is it necessarily so? Hell no.

        The recognition of these two facts should be the starting point for any discussion of immigration policy.

        1. Well put.

          How do we counterbalance, say, quadrupling the rape rate with cheap labor?

          Only let in women, I guess.

        2. Europe’s problem is welfare and regulations. Welfare and regulations are poison everywhere, immigrant or not. They are just especially harsh on low skilled. I mean, look and compare Detroit and Dearborn. Arabs are OK compared to native blacks. Europe? Not so much.

          1. “I mean, look and compare Detroit and Dearborn. Arabs are OK compared to native blacks. Europe? Not so much.”

            The Arabs that come to the US are among the elite, not so for Europe.

        3. There is no evidence whatsoever that Europe is worse off for immigration. All of America’s immigrants are assimilating just fine. None of the destinations are being turned into the source of immigration.

          1. A lot of the crime in Sweden can be directly attributed to immigrants.

            http://www.thelocal.se/20051214/2683

          2. And you know this because you live in South Texas and interact with them in the majority every day ?

            Or is that something you heard while sitting on your sofa in Canada ?

            Come to Houston and go into some national chain resturants. Whe the server can’t take your order beyound #5, or #3 and cant unserstandyou don’t want mustard, then tell me from Canada that all of America’s immigrants are assimilating. Perhaps compared to the No GO zones in France but that isn’t the definitive measure.

            1. “Come to Houston and go into some national chain resturants. Whe the server can’t take your order beyound #5, or #3 and cant unserstandyou don’t want mustard, then tell me from Canada that all of America’s immigrants are assimilating.”
              Sounds like you need to spend your money elsewhere.

    2. It must be the famously nice weather in Minneapolis that makes workers so much more “productive” there then in Somalia. It can’t have anything to do with the people.

      Here is a good collection of pictures illustrating the vibrant diversity that has been imported to Minneapolis:

      http://www.amren.com/features/…..ooks-like/

      1. International Jew|5.12.15 @ 3:54PM|#
        “It must be the famously nice weather in Minneapolis that makes workers so much more “productive” there then in Somalia. It can’t have anything to do with the people.”

        It must be a slimy racist to make this point.

        1. It would be racist, but would it be wrong?

          1. International Jew|5.12.15 @ 5:16PM|#
            “It would be racist, but would it be wrong?”

            Yes, tulpa, it would be wrong.
            Fuck off.

    3. ” Multiply that by the hundreds of millions still stuck in low-productivity countries.”

      And then multiply that by half because half of Minnesota Somalis don’t work. And subtract out the public charge that a bunch of unemployed/low-wage people are.

  6. Open borders are a nice ideal. They won’t work in all situations. I’m in favor of an open border with Canada. With Mexico I think there is a real need for some very simple criminal and health screening. But if peaceful people want to come here, that’s great.

    1. Not only no, but hell no. If the Canadian border is open, Cytotoxic might just walk right down one of these days and we might have to deal with him in person. Fuck that.

      1. I have a MSc. I can probably get in now if I want to.

  7. “28 percent of all U.S. companies started in 2011 had immigrant founders?despite immigrants comprising roughly 13 percent of the population. In addition, some 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children.”

    Immigrants who were vetted through an extremely difficult process?

    1. I guess so, in the sense that hurdles “vet” sprinters… Who are just trying to qualify for the long jump.

      1. Doesn’t that make my point? If it was easier to get in, the quality of the average immigrant would decline.

        1. “Quality” being entirely subjective.

          1. Not this time, just read up. “Quality” as in the likelihood of one to start a company.

        2. As Cytotoxic said elsewhere, if you get lots more immigrants then, yes, you will get regression to the mean. The mean could be up or down based on what you intend to measure.

          But fuck “quality” of the average immigrant. Immigrants are people who want a better life according to their values. So long as they don’t violate my rights in doing so, come on in!

          Now, I’ll admit the welfare state muddies the waters, but it doesn’t change the fundamental equation in my mind. So if you want to impose some sort of requirement to have a job lined up, I may not like it, but I understand it. But there are tradeoffs there as well and its not clear it would end up being a net positive.

          1. “But fuck “quality” of the average immigrant. Immigrants are people who want a better life according to their values. So long as they don’t violate my rights in doing so, come on in!”

            Keep in mind that the illegals stand a good chance of being higher “quality”. These are people who are ambitious and motivated enough to leave where they live, travel under horrible circumstances. No wonder they out-compete Toad (below)!

          2. “But fuck “quality” of the average immigrant. Immigrants are people who want a better life according to their values.”

            Just as long as we realize what’s actually happening here, the point that immigrants under the current system are more entrepreneurial is an argument *for the current system* not opening it. There might be other reasons to want to open immigration, but let’s try to do one topic at a time.

            “So long as they don’t violate my rights in doing so, come on in!”

            Now, this is where the question gets complicated. What if the immigrant isn’t likely at all, but his children and grandchildren (and great grandchildren!) are far more likely to do just that? Oh well, “come on in!”?

            “Now, I’ll admit the welfare state muddies the waters, but it doesn’t change the fundamental equation in my mind. So if you want to impose some sort of requirement to have a job lined up, I may not like it, but I understand it. But there are tradeoffs there as well and its not clear it would end up being a net positive.”

    2. Immigrants are also poorer than natives. I wonder why that is, if they are such good businessmen?

      1. International Jew|5.12.15 @ 3:45PM|#
        “Immigrants are also poorer than natives. I wonder why that is, if they are such good businessmen?”

        Slimy racists would wonder why that is.

    3. I do find it amusing that people criticize our current immigration policies by pointing to all the successful immigrants.

      Its possible, just possible, that if you fling open the gates to all comers, there might be some diminishing returns? That perhaps we are already skimming off the most beneficial immigrants, and that if we triple the number of immigrants, we might not triple the number of successful immigrants?

      Just asking, is all.

      1. The inverse is true as well (in the case of illegals). Whenever crime is brought up they quickly point out that immigrants commit less than the natives. But then you look at their offspring… and their offspring’s offspring…

        1. They regress to the norm.

          1. Are we in agreement that they increase or what here?

        2. “Whenever crime is brought up they quickly point out that immigrants commit less ”

          If you were a Mexican professional thief and could live on either side of the border which one would you choose ?

          The few that have stuff worth stealing in Mexico keep it well guarded. Most all middle class houses and up are surrounded by steel security fences and those who can afford it all have armed security. The prisons are notorious shitholes of terror.

          Compare that to America.

          They don’t all just come here to work.

  8. Think of it this way: A worker in Somalia can produce only one-tenth the economic value of a worker in the United States. But as soon as she trades the hellhole of Mogadishu for the comparative paradise of Minneapolis, she can immediately take advantage of the higher American TFP to produce vastly more.

    Can she? If she’s sweeping floors in Somalia and she goes and sweeps floors in Minneapolis, is she really “producing” any more economic value? Even if she is paid 6 times as much, she isn’t creating any more economic value. The “double world GDP” thing is based on the fallacy that just because someone is being paid more means they are producing more.

    1. Even if she is paid 6 times as much, she isn’t creating any more economic value.

      Of course she is creating more economic value. All costs are opportunity costs: if someone wasn’t sweeping the floor, someone else would be sweeping the floor. That someone else would be taken away from more valuable work, work she could do if someone else was sweeping the floor.

      If the marginal wage between floor sweeping and the next most valuable job is 6 times that marginal wage in Somalia, then the economic value she is producing in Minneapolis is 6 times the economic value she is producing in Somalia.

      Your assertion is the Labor Theory of Value, which is very outdated and, in fact, quite Marxist.

      1. And yours is the price theory of value, which says that “value” is indistinguishable from “price.”

        I don’t buy it. I’ve been manipulating markets for decades and I know they are very different.

        1. Do you really rule the world, or are you just a pawn for Mr lizard?

        2. International Jew|5.12.15 @ 4:34PM|#
          “I don’t buy it.”

          That’s because you’re an ignoramus.

      2. That someone else would be taken away from more valuable work, work she could do if someone else was sweeping the floor.

        Perhaps you should explain why, if this person is capable of doing more valuable, and presumably better paid work, why isn’t she doing it already? Is someone holding a gun to her head and forcing her to sweep floors until someone else comes along? Presumably all of our current floor sweepers are doctors and lawyers in waiting, merely waiting for an immigrant to come along and liberate them to pursue their true calling…

        1. She is sweeping for doctors and lawyers who pay her. If she wasn’t around, doctor and lawyer would have to sweep himself, and instead of 6/hr sweeper, you would end up with $500/hr sweeper. This is obviously suboptimal use of time and resources, to have doctors and lawyers sweep floors.

          1. “If she wasn’t around, doctor and lawyer would have to sweep himself, and instead of 6/hr sweeper, you would end up with $500/hr sweeper.”

            LOL wut

            1. When you pay doctor $500/hr, and he uses his time to sweep floors, you effectively have $500/hr sweeper.

              1. No you don’t.

                No one pays a doctor $500/hr WHEN he is sweeping.

                He may otherwise earn 600$/hr and then factor in the sweeoing time but no one is paying him, or rocket sientists, or Bill Gates $500/hr while he sweeps.

                1. You hire a doctor for $500/hr. He must have clean floor to do surgery. If he must sweep, then you effectively pay him $500/hr to sweep. He won’t do it for free.

                  Bill Gates gets paid a $1,000,000 every time he takes a dump. His time is that valuable. Which is why all those CEOs have armies of assistants and secretaries – nobody wants to pay CEO a $million to fetch coffee, secretary can do it cheaper.

                2. OneOut|5.12.15 @ 8:56PM|#
                  “No one pays a doctor $500/hr WHEN he is sweeping.”

                  You’re not real bright.
                  EVERYONE pays a doctor $500/hour when she’s sweeping, since time is fungible.

              2. “When you pay doctor $500/hr, and he uses his time to sweep floors, you effectively have $500/hr sweeper.”

                LOL wut

                Nobody is paying a doctor $500 to sweep floors. And no doctor is turning down $500 to sweep floors. The alternative to a $6 sweeper is a …. $7 sweeper.

                1. You are confusing intentions and actual actions. You may think that you pay doctor for surgery, but if he is sweeping the floor at his flat rate, he can’t do surgery at the same time. Congrats on your glorified maid.

                  1. Malkavian|5.12.15 @ 10:20PM|#
                    “You are confusing intentions and actual actions.”
                    And Sidd had been known to be, shall we say, confused.
                    Hey, Sidd; torque data do not require a time dimension!

                    1. “Hey, Sidd; torque data do not require a time dimension!”

                      Hey retard, neither does distance. And yet, d=vt. You’re old and stupid. It happens to us all. The wiser adjust, but you insist on Hihning up the comments.

                  2. ” You may think that you pay doctor for surgery, but if he is sweeping the floor at his flat rate, he can’t do surgery at the same time. Congrats on your glorified maid.”

                    A doctor that spends half his time doctoring and half his time sweeping isn’t competitive with a doctor who spends all his time doctoring. It’s fucking pathetic that you don’t understand this.

                    “You are confusing intentions and actual actions.”

                    The actual actions is …. doctors cleaning their own offices because there’s a lack of Somalis? Are you insane?

                    1. “A doctor that spends half his time doctoring and half his time sweeping isn’t competitive with a doctor who spends all his time doctoring.”

                      Exactly. You are getting this, finally. Which is why they need help at lower wages.

                      And yes, if there are no sweeping ladies, doctors would have to do it themselves. If they like sweeping ladies from Somalia, its their preference, and its up to them to negotiate a contract.

          2. Given that there are currently no $500/hr floor sweepers, and in fact most floor sweepers are earning minimum wage, it would appear we already have a sufficient supply of floor sweepers to meet demand.

            Which brings me to my next question for our resident economic wizards – given that real wages for most occupations have been stagnant for years, where do you get the idea we need additional labor? When a commodity becomes scarcer, it’s price generally rises, does it not? Yet, I see no rise in the cost of labor, absent a rise of the minimum wage. Would one of our Hayek spouting geniuses care to explain that?

            1. More immigrants = more employment. The labour force is not homogenous.

            2. Given that there are currently no $500/hr floor sweepers, and in fact most floor sweepers are earning minimum wage, it would appear we already have a sufficient supply of floor sweepers to meet demand.

              Do…er…you understand supply and demand curves?

              Just for the sake of argument, let’s postulate that the price of floor sweeping has stayed the same over 30 years. That doesn’t mean that we have “enough” sweepers. Indeed, our population has grown by some 40% in that time. If we had said “enough” in 1970, we would not have had enough supply to meet the demand from that new population. Can you tell me if the number of sweepers has gone up or down? Do you know what the demand for sweepers will be tomorrow? Then how do you know if the current level is enough? The current clearing price isn’t enough information to make that judgement.

              Additionally, these curves are a plotting of units cleared at a specific price asked/offered. A typical Demand curve tells us that MORE people would demand floor sweepers at a lower price. The current clearing price is set because more suppliers are unwilling to provide their services at a lower price. If new labor or technology allowed suppliers to offer floor sweeping at a lower price, there would be more demand for it as well.

              1. Do…er…you understand supply and demand curves?

                Er… Yes I do. I also know that when an occupation already pays the lowest wage the law allows, the market is telling you that you have a sufficient supply of labor to meet the demand. So the question is, do you understand supply and demand curves?

                1. “Er… Yes I do.”

                  Er, no you don’t. And I’m really wondering if it’s worth explaining it *again*, as Overt already has, and you are ignoring it.

                2. I also know that when an occupation already pays the lowest wage the law allows

                  Then you should revisit what you “know” because clearly you are just talking out your ass.

                  Go check the BLS and you will find that less than 5% of the workers in the United States are being paid Minimum Wage.

                  Ref: (TBCM talking out his ass) BLS Data for 2012

            3. ‘Sufficient supply’ is determined by the employer of said sweeper, and the wage.

        2. Perhaps you should explain why, if this person is capable of doing more valuable, and presumably better paid work, why isn’t she doing it already?

          This isn’t really that hard or controversial. The most commonly used scenario here is a doctor’s office. The doctor works alone and he gets proficient not only treating patients but also filing all his paperwork. Eventually, the doctor hires someone to his office who handles the filing. Even if this new person was less skilled at filing, the net economic production of that office is increased, because now the doctor can spend more of his available time performing the treating of patients.

          Much of the last few centuries’ economic growth has come from our ability to delegate tasks that we used to spend time on, so that we can spend time on more economically valuable activities. In the case of sweeping floors, often times businesses pay their line staff- cashiers, sales people, etc- to clean at the end of day. Depending on how specialized these skills are, it can make sense for a business to hire a cleaning crew instead. Thus, instead of spending the last hour of the day cleaning, a good sales person could be selling, or a cashier keeping the business open a little longer before closing.

          1. That isn’t what I asked, so I’ll ask you again – if this hypothetical person is capable of doing higher value work in the first place, why isn’t she doing it now? Is she indentured until someone else can be made to sweep the floors?

            The line about being “freed to do higher value labor” is a crock of shit. You’re already as free to pursue higher value work, if you qualify for it. I’ve yet to have an employer who insisted on being provided with a replacement before accepting my resignation.

            1. if this hypothetical person is capable of doing higher value work in the first place, why isn’t she doing it now?

              Because she’s in fucking Somalia.

              The line about being “freed to do higher value labor” is a crock of shit. You’re already as free to pursue higher value work, if you qualify for it.

              Not if the lower skill work MUST be done, and there’s no one else to do it.

              1. I don’t know what the laws in Canada are, but in this country it’s illegal for an employer to force you to work for him, regardless of whether the work “must” be done.

                You really are an idiot, aren’t you?

              2. so Somalia is a seething broth of lawyers and doctors in waiting, yet the country is a complete hell hole?

              3. so Somalia is a seething broth of lawyers and doctors in waiting, yet the country is a complete hell hole?

                1. No, but they have good cleaning ladies that can help our doctors and lawyers.

            2. That isn’t what I asked, so I’ll ask you again – if this hypothetical person is capable of doing higher value work in the first place, why isn’t she doing it now?

              Because, that less valuable work still needed to get done? I have to clean my own house. A business still needs to clean its premises. If there is no one else to do that work, we have to do it ourselves, even if that means we cannot spend our time on more valuable economic output. I would have to grow my own food if there weren’t someone else doing it for me. Because, ya know, I have to eat.

              Now there is someone offering to do this essential but less valuable (based on my skill sets) work in return for money. If I can make more money by spending my time doing my specialized trade than it costs to pay that person, voila! I have been “freed” to do more valuable work.

              1. Basically this is truth. Better explained.

                1. *Overt’s explanation.

              2. you did not answer the question, yet again.

                1. He did.

      3. In addition to the opportunity cost trade off, putting the person in the US can actually make them more effective.

        We had a team of engineers in India. At some point we moved those engineers to the US, and without even looking at their impact on others, their productivity went up. Why? They were suddenly working in an office or from home at night with reliable electric supplies. Their cell phones reliably reached them. They could gain experience and understanding from more technical people at the company. Getting new and better equipment was easier. Their kids didn’t get sick as much. They didn’t have to deal with Bangalore’s mad-max traffic situation. They didn’t have the 6000 holidays that they have in India.

        A rich, healthy economy is based on millions of people solving one another’s problems in infinite ways. From better traffic lights to a functional cell phone to a computer that compiles code 10% faster to a cleaning service that can reliably housekeep for a smaller portion of your salary- each of these little solutions frees each other person up to provide more, better solutions to others. This network effect- the fact that the sum of a network is larger than the sum of each node- is why moving a node from one network to a more productive one will make that node more productive.

        1. Except by moving those engineers here from India, you denied jobs to American engineers who have now gone on Welfare (not to mention, have all that student debt they can’t pay off).

          There’s no doubt that immigration is great for companies – they get cheap labor. But it’s not good for the rest of us.

          More Americans either go on welfare or other government assistance, because they don’t have jobs, or their wages are depressed. And costs of goods and services never go done, profits just are higher.

          1. JeremyR|5.12.15 @ 7:56PM|#
            “Except by moving those engineers here from India, you denied jobs to American engineers who have now gone on Welfare (not to mention, have all that student debt they can’t pay off).”

            Gee, Jeremy caught what al of us have been missing all this time:
            There are only X amount of jerbz and if some brown guy does one, some white guy has to go on welfare!
            Why didn’t we think of that?

          2. Immigrants spend, save, and invest their money just like everybody else. No jobs are lost, and more are gained.

            There can be welfare/crime/culture/voting patterns objections to immigrants, but economics is not it. Economic benefits from expansion of mutually beneficial exchange are indisputable.

            1. Malkavian|5.12.15 @ 10:37PM|#

              Immigrants spend, save, and invest their money just like everybody else. No jobs are lost, and more are gained.

              Bullshit. Does everybody else send a portion of their income to a foreign country on a regular basis and buy property there too? Do they spend their invest their housing money on overcrowded dwellings and sleep in shifts. You are right about some jobs being created to school their children in second languages and print government documents in multiple languages. Factor in the cost of hospitals and government funded social services as part of the redistribution of wealth. The goobermint is one impressive jobs producer. Yeah, you got me there. It’s all good. Open the gates. Stimulate that economy.

              No rights to be lost, balkanization or sub-cultures to be reason for concern. All cultures are equal, just that some are more equal than others.

              1. Ya know U, if you had some data to back your rantings and some reason that they are relevant, someone might pay attention to them.
                So far, it sounds like you lost your job to someone who is willing to do it better.
                So, cites and cogent argument, or STFU.

                1. ok Sevo, please provide information on how displacing US workers with foreigners who will live in squalor and work for low wages helps said US workers. Show us the numbers.

    2. Yes she is. She acts as a labor saving device for someone with means to pay 6X as much, and that someone is valuing her services accordingly.

  9. I live in Minneapolis and know several Somoli women that work downtown. Wonderful folks.

  10. ” Michael Clemens reviewed the literature on the relationship between economic growth and migration. He concluded that removing mobility barriers could plausibly produce overall gains of 20?60 percent of global GDP.”

    He does that with the backest of back-of-the-envelope calculations, which required 3 billion people to move to places currently inhabited by 1 billion….

  11. Immigration has never been bad.

    1. Smartest thing the Native Indians ever did was kill the Vikings.

  12. I am impressed that you get your data from Partnership for a New American Economy, which is an agenda-driven group that invents data to confirm their political goals. Open borders are a great equalizer, and good for the .001%. There will always be an immigrant willing to do your job for a tenth of your salary. They may not be very good at your job, but just having them in the market will bring wages down. And it is possible to support legal immigration and still oppose the chaos of open borders.

    1. “There will always be an immigrant willing to do your job for a tenth of your salary.”

      In which case, toadboy, you ought to find something to do that requires a bit more skill. Or admit that Jorge’, just off the boat has as much talent as you do and is willing to out-compete you for the job.
      It’s a bitch being a no-skill toad and hoping the government protects you, isn’t it?

  13. Did you perhaps mean to say that Jorge undercut the native in a possibly illegal manner and native should be thanking his government for forcing him to subsidizing Jorge Familia who will undoubtedly receive goobermint largess because of his low paid endeavors, right. The same goobermint that speaks of a living wage. Someone speak with forked tongue and suck big corporation dick. Do scabs make you feel warm inside.

    1. ULOST|5.12.15 @ 11:58PM|#
      “Did you perhaps mean to say that Jorge undercut the native…[…]”

      I’m sure you thought there was a point buried somewhere in there worthy of adult attention.
      You’re wrong.
      Try again in English; it works for logic more times than not.

  14. Did we really have to import people from the Marshall Islands, of all places, to work in the chicken-processing plants in Arkansas? My grandmother did that sort of work in the 1970’s, and I don’t think Arkansas has run out of hillbillies for those sorts of jobs:

    For Pacific Islanders, Hopes and Troubles in Arkansas

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07…..ansas.html

    1. advancedatheist|5.13.15 @ 12:26AM|#
      “Did we really have to import people from the Marshall Islands”

      Did YOU really have a point, or just a link to a worthless NYT article?
      Not sure what your claim of ‘advanced’ has to do with other than hubris, BTW.

  15. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.