Scott Walker

Scott Walker: The Labor Protectionist

After supporting legalization for undocumented aliens, he now opposes even legal immigration

|

Hillary Clinton yesterday came out forcefully in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens. Setting aside

Scott Walker
Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

the irony of the party of labor unions positioning itself as a champion of labor mobility and (at least indirectly) against labor protectionism, this is a very smart move because it plays to her party's Hispanic base while (further) discrediting Republicans with it. Not that Republicans need any help on that front.

They are fearlessly sliding down the political deadend of the restrictionist road. And the latest to tread on it is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a union-busting right-wing darling who is fast becoming the GOP front-runner for the presidential nomination. Once the most enlightened voice in his party on the issue, he shocked everyone recently by questioning not just illegal but legal immigration. This was in sharp contrast to his previous positions when he  supported a path to legalization for undocumented aliens in the country and supported throwing open the door to others as statements like this suggested:

"If people want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don't care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else. I want them here."

Yet now he is insinuating, a la ultra-restrictionist Sen. Jeff Sessions, that even legal immigration needs to be reconsidered becasue it threatens American wages and jobs.

But Walker's immigration switcheroo is not the real story. The real story is the  switcheroo by the right-wing punditry without which his would not have happened, I note in a column this morning in the USA Today:

But if Walker thinks he can get away with embracing labor protectionism it's because he knows that respectable conservatives will give him cover, something he could not have counted on before. That's because, until recently, except for National Review, the vast bulk of smart-set conservative opinion was decisively in favor letting market need — not the arbitrary whim of a labor bureaucracy beholden to unions — set immigration levels.

No more.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: More on the University of Minnesota Charlie Hebdo controversy: 'There are limits on free speech'

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. he now opposes eve legal immigration

    What about immigration in the morning hours? Does he support that?

    1. Only east of Eden.

  2. The party line is that immigration doesn’t affect wages. If that is true, Walker isn’t a labor protectionist.

    The open borders people on the one hand claim that immigration won’t negatively affect wages and then on the other hand claim that immigration restrictions will result in higher prices. Both of those things cannot be true.

    1. Actually, they can be true, because they are not two sides of the same coin but different things.

      In the long term wages are proportional to marginal productivity. Thus, so long as the capital structure exists to make immigrants productive their wages will start low but trend upward until they are in line with the wages people got before the new immigrants “flooded” in.

      The price of goods are the product of what consumers are willing to pay to clean out the supply the economy is producing. Restricting labor results in a smaller mix of goods and services being produced, resulting in the market clearing prices being higher.

      Of course, the marginal productivity of the expanded labor market will be dependent on what the expanded consumer pool are willing to pay for stuff. So in the long term, the wages could end up lower or higher based on changes to consumer preference.

      Because an increase in immigration increases both the number of producers and the number of consumers, so while we can predict a first order effect of wages for unskilled labor going down in the short term with a high degree of confidence, we can’t really predict the long term other than to say technological improvements will keep pushing wages upward, and the long term will regress towards a mean.

      1. Real wages are only equal to marginal productivity in the ideal. Yes, long term they will equal that. But how long long term is varies. The worker only extracts the increase in productivity from the employer if he has the leverage to do so. In the long run he will. The problem is that as long as the employer can import cheaper labor from overseas, the worker has no leverage. Sure, at some point that labor runs out and wages rise. It is however, a big world and if you have full open borders, that long run is a very long time. Perhaps even longer than the life of the worker.

        So that is a pretty empty promise.

        1. You’re right!

          That’s why here in MA we sturglle with all those immigrants from West Virginia driving down our wages.

          And don’t even get me started on those assholes from Springfield taking work from honest Bostonians!

          1. You kid but of course that happened. The reason why all the mills left MA was cheap labor competition in the South.

            The point is that the maxim that wages equal productivity does not mean that labor is immune from supply and demand. Wages are still a function of labor supply and labor demand. All marginal productivity is, is the natural ceiling of wages. It is not some iron law that dictates what wages in any given market will be.

            Moreover, if it were, immigration wouldn’t lower prices. Immigration doesn’t increase productivity necessarily. It mostly makes things cheaper by increasing competition and decreasing wages. But if wages are not dependent on competition, then they won’t fall and things don’t get any cheaper.

            1. This is all true, but is still isn’t a good reason to restrict immigration. The case for open immigration is a moral one based on individual rights theory. It’s not about who benefits.

      2. The difficulty, I think, arises from the way a sufficient supply of un/low-skilled immigrant labor depresses wages for all un/low-skilled employees.

        Pretending this doesn’t happen is an exercise in rejecting the law of supply and demand.

        The counter to this is that very low wages at the low end allows for lower consumer pricing, for a “general”/collective benefit.

        There are also some second-order effects to be concerned about (many the product of other government policies, to be sure), such as the (semi?)permanent marginalization of a cohort of un/low-skilled workers due to simple oversupply of these workers.

        The fact that, over time, immigrants can expect to escape the un/low-skilled market doesn’t really do much for the folks who are collecting lower wages today. That’s where, depending on your preference, there is political hay to be made and/or there is a problem to be solved.

        1. It is not just low skilled. As Brett points out below, if immigration didn’t lower wages in the tech field, why are tech companies begging for it so much?

          1. Uhhh. Because they need the talent and there isn’t enough of it?

            1. The unemployment rate among native tech workers says otherwise. If they were desperate for the talent, the native tech worker UE rate would be at its natural low point and it is not.

              1. Citation needed.

              2. Companies would also ramp up their own training programs to develop talent in-house.

                It’s a pain in the ass to jump through the hoops for a H1B hire. It’s not just about wages either.

              3. I’m not sure that’s all true – while there are unemployed tech workers, I know for a fact that good techies are in demand. I suspect that a lot (not all, I’m sure) of the unemployed tech workers aren’t all that skilled – or their skills are in less desired areas (‘tech’ is a big field).

          2. Tech companies are swimming in money. They want MORE talent. They want to hire MORE people. And they could if the fucking government would get the hell out of their way.

            People who view anything immigration related as some kind of conspiracy, whether it be to fill the country with Dem voters or to depress tech wages need to fucking take a breath and look in the mirror. Because it’s fucking asinine. People aren’t that coordinated.

            1. They also, not unnaturally, want to hire that talent as cheaply as possible, and if spending a few million on government lobbyists will help crony up their field with near-slave visa contracts, it’s well worth it.

              The real problem is the government having so much power that they are corruptible and worth it.

              1. It would be great if we made it easier for H1-B holders to switch employers. Then they could compete for the highest wage instead of being locked into a job for 3-6 years.

                1. Yes, that would be by far the simplest reform. But I suspect the industry lobbies against it in the background, wink wink nudge nudge style.

    2. It’s a well known result that the lowest wage earners see a modest decrease in their wages due to unskilled immigration but that the rest of wage earners see a marginal increase. The overall effect on wages marginally positive.

      Hence both the average native worker and the average immigrant worker can see their wages both rise — the latter significantly — while the average worker’s wage goes down, resulting in lower prices.

      By the way, given that the lowest wage earners are generally the last wave of immigrants, lower wages due to more immigration is mostly seen by them.

      1. It’s a well known result that the lowest wage earners see a modest decrease in their wages due to unskilled immigration but that the rest of wage earners see a marginal increase.<<br /
        No its not. Moreover, that assumes only unskilled labor immigration, which open borders would not be. Lastly, there is absolutely no reason to think more unskilled workers would increase higher skilled workers wages. Well known my ass.

        1. The go-to anti-immigration economist is George Borjas. His 2005 work corrects his 2003 work referenced there to recognize that capital substitution makes immigration a net positive for the economy as a whole.

          This is pretty much the standing well-known result. Has it been disproven or retracted?

  3. Walker is a selective union buster having demonstrated his cowardice to bust the FOP.

    Before any idiot screams, “he had to be practical” – this is the same guy who is Mr. Crony capitalist socialist with his support of Wisconsin taxpayers footing a significant portion of the bill for the construction of the Bucks’ new facility.

    1. But he had to be practical. It’s the Bucks!

    2. To be fair, the Wisconsin police did hold many of Walker’s supporters, aides and advisers at gunpoint during politically motivated midnight raids. Maybe he got the “message”.

  4. A politician being inconsistent. Stop the Goddamn presses.

  5. I just read his recent comments on legal immigration and it seems unclear to me exactly what he was implying. I think this story is jumping the gun on Walker being anti legal immigration.

    1. I think he is just telling the truth that high levels of immigration, legal or otherwise, drives down wages. You can’t talk about wages without talking about immigration. If you want open borders, then be honest and admit you are fine with stagnant or falling real wages.

      1. The left-tards have an answer for that too, it’s called a $20 an hour minimum wage. Being a prog means never having to make trafeoffs.

      2. Its true. Immigration does drive down wages. Otherwise tech leaders wouldn’t be begging for expanding the H1-B program. SLD, I’m okay with competing with everyone in the world for my salary. But the average wage for technology jobs worldwide, even adjusted for local cost of living is lower than the US average. And its even worse for skilled trades and unskilled labor. So, we can have free immigration, but US workers aren’t going to be the winners unless our productivity increases at least as fast as the marginal immigrant with the same skills.

        1. Re: Brett L,

          Its true. Immigration does drive down wages. Otherwise tech leaders wouldn’t be begging for expanding the H1-B program.

          That makes absolutely NO sense, Brett. If there is DEMAND for labor, then wages cannot FALL. If there is a call for more H1-B visas is because there is an UNMET demand for skilled labor. There is simply not enough of it.

          First of all, labor is the SCARCEST of resources. Labor employed in one thing cannot be employed in another thing at the same time. This means you either increase the amount of labor or you bid labor up (which increases the cost of production) or you do something else. It makes NO sense to keep bidding up the price of labor because that would mean you’re bidding with other employers for the same workers. At one point, the cost becomes prohibitive

          So, we can have free immigration, but US workers aren’t going to be the winners unless our productivity increases at least as fast as the marginal immigrant with the same skills.

          But productivity DOES increase when you increase the pool of labor! Imagine if you live on a deserted island with the crew of Lost. Every time you lose ONE member of the crew, of course the marginal VALUE of each remaining crew members will rise but that does NOT translate to more productivity! Losing a member DECREASES productivity as you keep chipping away the Division Of Labor.

      3. I don’t know how true that really is. In theory it makes sense. But it’s never really affected me. H1B visa holders will work in IT jobs for lower wages that an American will, but I don’t know any software developers who are out of work or not getting the wages they want despite the fact that there may be an Indian guy in the next office doing the same job for 20% less.

        I am always hearing stories about how American IT guy gets displaced by foreign worker. But being in the industry for 20 years, I wonder how much of this is due to grumpy old guys who refuse to update their skills and still want to code in Cobol. Because I have seen plenty of that.

        1. The Indians doing the job for way less are also usually sucky coders. The really good coders and thinkers get snapped up by Microsoft and Google and the like, and those companies then make sure they get their H1B. They will always go out of their way for top talent, no matter where it’s from. And that’s why the suckier coders don’t get H1Bs and end up being in an outsource shop in Bangalore.

          1. Or they may be good coders but have no business sense or time management skills or the myriad other things we have to be in order to keep up.

            1. True. Also, being able to do your own analysis and create good working relationships with clients is a highly valuable skill. Something that is typically not available with the guy who just got off the ship.

              1. Yeah, nobody just “codes” any more. At least not in the real world. All of the Indians I work with in the US have figured that out but most of the ones still in India have not.

          2. I can’t disagree with that. I do know some Indian coders who are good. But again, I don’t know any good American coders who are out of work or underpaid, not even one.

            Another thing is, often the employer has no choice to hire the H1B worker, because they have projects that need to be completed, and all the good American coders are already taken out of the prospective hire pool. I’ve seen that also. It’s extremely difficult right now to hire a quality experienced American developer. They’re not available.

            1. They could also train people. Hire an inexperienced coder, promote one of the less experienced ones, and let them grow into their jobs. It’ll take longer, but maybe it’s better than waiting for the perfect guy to turn up.

        2. Well, there’s Disney replacing IT workers with H1-B immigrants.

          http://www.computerworld.com/a…..rkers.html

          Naturally, there is a lack of clarity about how many, etc. But still. . . .

        3. grumpy old guys who refuse to update their skills

          I wanted to be that guy but it didn’t work out.

          1. I’m a grumpy old guy who comes in late, refuses to tuck in my shirt and often says things that are taboo in the modern PC workplace, but my skills are up to date. I guess the latter trumps the former.

        4. “I am always hearing stories about how American IT guy gets displaced by foreign worker.”

          Of course they do. It’s delusional to think otherwise. Supply. Demand. Basic economics.

          Reason just goes brain dead dishonest with respect to their Open Borders ideology.

      4. Re: John,

        I think he is just telling the truth that high levels of immigration, legal or otherwise, drives down wages.

        I don’t understand how does that work. Leaving aside the obvious fact that if there is immigration is because there is DEMAND for labor and not a greater supply, I don’t understand your economic theory here.

    2. I think this story is jumping the gun on Walker being anti legal immigration.

      It’s Dalmia. Pretty much anything other than, “I think all illegal immigrants should be celebrated , if not subsidized and given full voting rights, even if by executive fiat” means you’re a horrible immigration restrictionist who wants to seal the borders.

      Hell, I’m inclined to support open borders and I find her arguments lacking credibility.

      1. It’s Dalmia. Pretty much anything other than, “I think all illegal immigrants should be celebrated , if not subsidized and given full voting rights, even if by executive fiat” means you’re a horrible immigration restrictionist who wants to seal the borders

        That’s a very lefty sounding stance right there, if I’ve ever heard one. You are for it or you’re a rat fucking baby murderer tea bagger.

  6. He should oppose legal immigration. How about both sides start being honest? People like Dalmia need to be honest and admit they want no immigration control at all and people like Walker admit they want to limit immigration in general not just illegal immigration. Whatever you think of the issue, it would be nice to have an honest debate about it rather than both sides lying.

    It appears that Walker has started to tell the truth. So how about Dalmia?

    1. I wonder what she thinks of Rotherham.

      1. Government failure! Needs more immigration!

      2. My guess is that it is a product of bad government and not PC dogma. She probably also thinks that it wasn’t just Muslims involved and that people only think so because of racist lies. Her thinking is probably similar to what Progs tell themselves about the IRS targeting scandal. Some variation of “it is not what it seems” and “it wasn’t just one group that was a victim”.

        1. My guess is that it is a product of bad government and not PC dogma

          I think its bad government as a result of the infection of government by PC dogma, aided and abetted by bundling these immigrants into districts where they can guarantee the election for the Labor Party.

          1. That is what I think too. I was saying what I think Dalmia thinks.

    2. Why should he oppose legal immigration?

      An honest debate? With who? The left? They don’t want a debate. Either you are for something or against it, there is no nuances, no degrees of anything. It’s all black and white, in or out, off or on, you’re for it or against it.

      1. Because there is nothing magical about an illegal. If you believe in immigration, then why not support amnesty? They are already here. If you have a problem with the illegals that are here working and not committing crime, then you have a problem with immigration as a whole. There is nothing wrong with that but you should be honest about it.

        And yes, there is no one to have an honest debate about this issue, least of all the open border advocates.

        1. least of all the open border advocates.

          /rolls eyes

          1. it is true. Most of them just want more Democratic voters. How do you have an honest debate with them? As for the Libertarians, they won’t admit that open borders means letting everyone in, including criminals. It is just not practical to run criminal background checks on everyone who wants to come here if you had true open borders. Further, they seem to believe that while Americans can be motivated by welfare, no foreigner would ever move here to get welfare, which is a bit odd to say the least.

            1. As for the Libertarians, they won’t admit that open borders means letting everyone in, including criminals.

              Wow! We don’t? Becasue I remember Tulpa getting pissed when I brazenly said that very thing in a discussion with him early in his decline….

              Further, they seem to believe that while Americans can be motivated by welfare, no foreigner would ever move here to get welfare, which is a bit odd to say the least.

              We do?!? Let me check the essay I linked to above. … let’s see… nope, I said the exact opposite.

              Dr Hoppe is correct, though, to fear the consequences of an open borders policy coupled with a generous welfare state. One need only to look at the examples of France and England to see the consequences of allowing people to immigrate, denying them the ability to earn a living, and offering them a monthly stipend to sit around and do nothing. Of course, in such societies the problem is not limited to immigration itself, but any form of population growth. Every new baby born to someone living in the country has a similar chance of ending up as a strain on the capital stock of the country. Banning immigration serves only to prolong the inevitable collapse, and that if one accepts this as justification for preventing people from immigrating into some country, then one must also, to be consistent, be in favor of restricting births of new babies.

              Gosh, John! You sure got us!

        2. John, I think you should reread what I just wrote. I said ‘LEGAL’ immigration. Why should he be against that?

          I’m not talking about illegal immigration here at all, which I am not for because of many reasons. I’m not ‘against’ illegal immigrants. I’m against the way the government is handling this.

        3. What if you don’t have a problem with illegal immigrants, personally, but you think that amnesty is arbitrary power? That would be my position and I resent that people assume that I have a problem with “brown people” just because I don’t think politicians should randomly get to decide who comes or who stays based on what’s politically expedient for them at the time.

          1. You can certainly object to Obama abusing the law. That said, if you have millions of people who are already here and working and not committing a crime, what sense does it make to deport them while letting other people, who may or may not be good workers or criminals in?

            I say this as someone who objects to large levels of immigration. Anyone who tells you they love immigration but just want to deport the illegals is most likely not being honest. They want to deport the illegals because they want lower levels of immigration as a whole.

            1. The biggest problem is the precedent it sets and the incentives it creates for more people to come here illegally. So the question is not whether the cost of deporting immigrants is higher than just letting them stay, obviously it isn’t. The question is how the cost of deportation now compares to the costs of exponentially increasing the amount of illegals long term. It’s not an easy question, but a politician who is only thinking a few years ahead, at most, is not the one to answer it.

              1. that should be obviously it is*

          2. One of the issues is that legal immigrants here typically are the ones who hate this idea the most, because they feel betrayed, having to go through all of the draconian process and long waits to immigrate here legally and then our government not only lets people bypass that process, but actually rewards them for it.

            Democrats seem totally oblivious to that dynamic of this topic. Sort of like they seem oblivious to the plight of people who work hard, and then part of their hard earned prosperity is stolen from them and given to their lazy neighbor who refuses to work and is gaming the system for every dime they can cheat the tax payers out of. This is also behavior that politicians reward.

            1. I agree, which is why I believe that if illegal immigration was increased enough eventually we’d start to see a decrease in legal immigration, assuming it’s not already happening.

  7. Sigh….

    I hate to say this, but it really doesn’t matter; what politicians with a shot at victory say in an election campaign that they will do and what they actually do in office are only tenously correlated.

    George Bush promised us a humbler foreign policy and a backing down from Clinton’s war-mongering, and we got increased tensions with China.

    Barack Obama promised us transparency and respect for civil liberties gave us opacity and politically motivated prosecutions.

    1. It’s almost as if politicians are lying sacks of shit who should be treated with contempt and disdain rather than hope and respect.

      1. That’s why I’m voting for a fresh new voice and change. HILLARY 2016!

        1. Hey! You promised me you would vote for Chtulhu!!!!!!

          WTF?!? You welshing on your promise to the sleeping god?

          1. Vote with your vagina, tarran!

          2. “Hey! You promised me you would vote for Chtulhu!!!!!!”

            He said he wouldn’t vote for the lesser of two evils. So clearly it’s Hillary 2016.

        2. No, Warty/Nicole 2016. This time, why not the worst?

          1. I can’t run as the greater of two evils against HIllary. I’d have to, I dunno, eat babies on stage or something, wouldn’t I?

  8. Hillary Clinton yesterday came out forcefully in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens.

    As President, is she going to a.) go through Congress, or b.) just make law up on her own?

    1. Put me down for fifty bucks on “b.”

    2. “Wait, you mean I’m running for president and not queen?!” – Hilldawg

  9. When did supporting a limit on legal immigration become “ultra-restrictionist”?

    1. See my comment above.

      1. Hell, I’m inclined to support open borders and I find her arguments lacking credibility.

        Same here. Actually I think there are good arguments on both sides but like Hyp said above, if you’re a politician every issue has to be black or white.

  10. immigration is going to be the “abortion” of this election cycle

    by which i mean, in the 1990s, political parties basically became one-dimensional pro or con on the issue of abortion, and any nuance or variation was basically considered heretical. You were either A or B. there was no C, and there is no “mostly B”.

    Everyone in the GOP is going to fall over themselves to stick to the party line, regardless of what their real policy-ideas are. and the dems will never stop reminding people how racist the GOP is because of it.

    1. Everyone in the GOP is going to fall over themselves to stick to the party line…

      So what is the 2016 GOP party line on immigration? Jeb basically says wide open immigration is an act of love.

      1. Fuck the Burrito Bush and anything that he says.

      2. What we are seeing is a conflict inside the GOP between the establishmentarian/country club/chamber of commerce wing of the party, and the grassroots of the party.

        1. I think it could also be classified as a Christian/secularist schism within the GOP.

    2. So…business as usual?

  11. Scott Walker: The Citizen Protectionist

    Most people around the world expect their government to look after *their* interests before the interests of foreigners.

    1. The government’s job is to respect and defend my rights. It’s my job to look out for my interests.

      Of course, you are probably right about what most people think.

  12. Yet now he is insinuating, a la ultra-restrictionist Sen. Jeff Sessions, that even legal immigration needs to be reconsidered becasue it threatens American wages and jobs.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions’ economics are highly dubious. I can’t fathom someone taking his side on this.

  13. Re: Brett L,

    Its true. Immigration does drive down wages. Otherwise tech leaders wouldn’t be begging for expanding the H1-B program.

    That makes absolutely NO sense, Brett. If there is DEMAND for labor, then wages cannot FALL. If there is a call for more H1-B visas is because there is an UNMET demand for skilled labor. There is simply not enough of it.

    First of all, labor is the SCARCEST of resources. Labor employed in one thing cannot be employed in another thing at the same time. This means you either increase the amount of labor or you bid labor up (which increases the cost of production) or you do something else. It makes NO sense to keep bidding up the price of labor because that would mean you’re bidding with other employers for the same workers. At one point, the cost becomes prohibitive

    So, we can have free immigration, but US workers aren’t going to be the winners unless our productivity increases at least as fast as the marginal immigrant with the same skills.

    But productivity DOES increase when you increase the pool of labor! Imagine if you live on a deserted island with the crew of Lost. Every time you lose ONE member of the crew, of course the marginal VALUE of each remaining crew members will rise but that does NOT translate to more productivity! Losing a member DECREASES productivity as you keep chipping away the Division Of Labor.

    1. If there is DEMAND for labor, then wages cannot FALL.

      This is Marxist thinking. OK, reverse Marxist thinking, but equally off in the broccoli,

      The robots will satisfy the demand for labor.

    2. ” If there is DEMAND for labor, then wages cannot FALL.”

      In an ideal case, What we seem to have here is a demand for labor at a price point below what the suppliers in the local market deem worth providing their services for. That may be because the local market conditions are artificially maintained, or it may be the supplier outside the local market have a lower quality product or some combination. Whatever the case, there is supply in the local market at the higher price point and the point of securing the outside supply is to drive down that price.

      1. Furthermore, there are roughly 3 segments of the consumer market.

        A – People who can afford the higher prices and would consume products produced by higher-paid domestic labor in any case;

        B – People who can afford the higher prices but would consume products produced by lower-paid immigrant labor if available;

        C – People who cannot afford the higher prices and thus are unable to consume if the only products available are those produced by higher-paid domestic labor.

        Segment B is the largest segment, or at least is much larger than segment A, and that is why (from the demand side) prices would go down. Most people don’t want to pay more than they have to.

        However, artificially maintaining the status quo through immigration restrictions keeps segment C priced out of the market. Moreover, forcing segment B to pay higher prices keeps them from using their money elsewhere.

      2. “Whatever the case, there is supply in the local market at the higher price point and the point of securing the outside supply is to drive down that price.”

        True, because price point is above the monopoly price. That is, no matter what the shortage, companies aren’t going to pay more than those wages, they are simple not going to stay in that business at all or move overseas. You can’t force them to pay more for labor than the labor is worth to them, no matter what policies you adopt.

        For Silicon Valley, monopoly pricing for engineers is between around $90000 and $250000 depending on experience.

        In the case of tech workers, increasing pay also isn’t going to increase supply, because most people can’t do the job no matter how much they may want to.

  14. What illegal and low skill immigrants “take away” isn’t jobs but government services.

    You can have unrestricted migration or a welfare state (and for kid yourself that’s what we have), but not both.

  15. Otherwise tech leaders wouldn’t be begging for expanding the H1-B program.

    Tech leaders are telling you why: is not because of wages, it’s because the labor pool is to small in the US. They can’t find all the people they need.

    The idea that that should cause wages to rise indefinitely that seems to spook progressive thinking isn’t true either. Companies are still not going to pay more than what a worker actually contributes to the bottom line. If they can’t find workers at that price in the US, they either move overseas or get out of the business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.