Immigration

The Nationalist Right Is Wrong: More Immigration Doesn't Reduce Wages

The reason: Immigrants help increase labor demand as well as labor supply.

|

Alongside claims that immigrants are a "cultural" and "demographic" threat to the United States, some prominent members of the new nationalist right argue that increased immigration will hurt working-class Americans in the pocketbook.

"These new arrivals compete primarily with the very Americans most likely to have lost their jobs, and the effect is lower wages," Tucker Carlson declared during an anti-immigrant monologue on his Fox News show last year. Academics like the controversial University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax have argued that immigration, particularly low-skilled immigration, has undercut working-class American wages.

At first blush, this seems to make intuitive sense. But new a new paper in the Journal of Development Economics helps show why new immigrants do not, in fact, tend to hurt native workers. After reviewing the flow of Syrian refugees into Jordan, researchers found that "Jordanians living in areas with a high concentration of refugees have had no worse labor market outcomes than Jordanians with less exposure to the refugee influx."

That's particularly eye-opening given the scale of the migration. Over 1.3 million Syrians moved to Jordan from the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011 to 2015. That's a huge influx into a country of 6.6 million Jordanians.

The study's result is consistent with the vast majority of economic research about immigration's impact on wages. The Mariel Boatlift in 1980 is a common case study. 

In 1980, amid especially bad domestic economic conditions, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro allowed about 125,000 people to leave the country. They fled to southern Florida, increasing the size of Miami's labor force by 7 percent in a matter of weeks. Given the sudden nature of this change, and given that most of these migrants were not particularly high-skilled, the Mariel Boatlift a good place to examine how immigration affects wages. And most studies of the boatlift find that the boatlift did not reduce native-born Americans' pay. A 1990 paper by the Berkeley labor economist David Card, for example, found that the boatlift had "virtually no impact on the wages or employment rates" of lower-skilled Miami workers.

The Harvard economist George Borjas reached a different conclusion. His paper, published in 2017, found that the wages of high school dropouts in Miami fell by between 10 and 30 percent after the boatlift. But now a new study in The Journal of Human Resources finds that the wages of high school dropouts in Miami didn't change relative to the wages of high school dropouts in other cities that did not experience a large immigration influx. 

How, you might ask, is that possible? After all, the basic laws of economics suggest that an increase in the supply of labor should lower the price of labor. But increased immigration doesn't just increase the supply of labor—it also expands the demand for labor. Immigrants aren't just workers. They also help start businesses, and they purchase goods and services from existing businesses. 

Indeed, immigrants play a substantial role in American entrepreneurship. Immigrants make up 15 percent of the U.S. population but start around 25 percent of new businesses. And while high-skilled immigrants disproportionately found the largest American companies, less-skilled newcomers are also disproportionately responsible for low-income entrepreneurship.    

So that's why native wages didn't drop. If you look at immigrants as contributing only to labor supply and not labor demand, you are committing what economists call the lump of labor fallacyGiven how entrepreneurial immigrants tend to be, letting more foreigners into United States might actually be a partial solution to slow wage growth, not its cause. 

NEXT: The Article II Executive Power and the Rule of Law (Part 4)

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.

Please to post comments

187 responses to “The Nationalist Right Is Wrong: More Immigration Doesn't Reduce Wages

  1. Magical thinking + magical statistics = labor is a special case where supply and demand are instantaneously synchronous such that a drastic increase in the one actually has a positive effect on the other. And don’t forget about the multiplier effect on those remittances to Mexico! We’re literally quintupling our money for every buck spent on the illiterate Guatemalan that shines Chuckie Koch’s boots!

    1. And of course, disaggregating the wage effects is helpful to paint the complete picture: the wealthy and middle class benefit while the poor and working class lose. But hey, moving the bottom quintile of your labor force out of work and onto welfare so that you can save on wages paid to immigrants whose income will also be supplemented by welfare is maximum economic efficiency! Hell, since we know government spending has an even higher multiplier effect than private spending we might actually be sextupling our money

      1. Muresianu was being deliberately dishonest here, and pulling the regular neo-Reason trick of conflating legal immigration with illegal alien invasion.
        For example: “More Immigration Doesn’t Reduce Wages”.
        Nobody disputes that with legal immigration, but when a bourgeois in Georgetown or SF can pay an illegal to grounds-keep all day for a twenty, it’s much cheaper than hiring a citizen who must pay taxes, regulatory fees and pay his help minimum wage.

    2. It does seem odd that adding a lot of something won’t reduce its scarcity at all.

      1. “It does seem odd that adding a lot of something won’t reduce its scarcity at all.”

        Doesn’t seem odd at all that adding a lot of demand doesn’t reduce the cost of labor.

        1. There’s little evidence of a massive spike in demand. But there is substantial evidence of a massive spike in supply.

          If these illegals do the “jobs Americans won’t do”, it is solely a wage issue. Which means they do it for LESS than an American would do it for legally.

          1. There’s little evidence of a massive spike in demand.

            People who make so little money that they need public assistance to feed their kids are simultaneously stimulating demand for services to the point that it exceeds the incomes of the workers they displaced. Weirdly, the same thing doesn’t happen in, say, Detroit or Cleveland where a desperately poor population tends to lead to economic stagnation.

          2. “There’s little evidence of a massive spike in demand. But there is substantial evidence of a massive spike in supply.”

            Your cite is missing.

          3. There’s little evidence of a massive spike in demand.

            Except for very low unemployment rates.

            1. Because the U3 unemployment number fully captures the state of the immigrant labor market instead of being a poor aggregation of national statistics that excludes well over half of the people out of work in this country.

    3. We must stop all these people moving to the cities!! New York, San Jose, DC — look how much these have grown recently. And now there are no jobs there! All these new immigrants into these cities have diluted the labor pool so much the original residents are all unemployed!

      1. All these new immigrants into these cities have diluted the labor pool so much the original residents are all unemployed!

        It’s hilarious that you think you’re scoring a point here considering San Jose’s rampart problems with homelessness and gentrification completely displacing the population that lived there 30 years ago.

        1. So, in hindsight, the San Jose City Council of 30 years ago should have built a wall around the city and heavily restricted migration into the city, so that the city could have stayed just the way it was. Agreed?

          1. No. Immigration is an enumerated power of the federal government. State and local governments lack thatpower.

        2. Now you sound like a typical progressive. Interesting, isn’t it.

          1. Yeah, the “National Conservative” Right are really just right-wing progressives.

            Left-wing progressives want to use the power of the state to mold the nation into its idyllic conception of social justice.

            Right-wing progressives want to use the power of the state to mold the nation into its idyllic conception of Real ‘Murica.

            And here we are, stuck with both of those sets of idiots.

            1. Oh look Jeff is bitching again, while pretending not to be a leftist con artist to his loser fuck buddy.

            2. And here we are, stuck with both of those sets of idiots.

              Right, because you totally oppose social justice and supranational global governance.Lol.

          2. Uh oh, you stuck your foot in your mouth and undermined your own point. It’s a good thing you’re a centrist who is above the fray!

      2. You mean the cities with the huge, unemployed homeless populations?

        Or the ones with tent encampments?

        Or the ones constantly complaining that it’s too expensive to live in them because they don’t get paid enough because the labor pool is so huge that it’s an employer’s market?

        You know, the cities where the labor pool is so diluted that the original residents can’t afford to live there.

        1. Dude…gotta crack some eggs to make some omelettes amirite?

          The country needs to follow SF’s example. That city has it shit together.

          1. That city has its shit everywhere

            FTFY

            1. We should rename SF Fecal Cohesion.

        2. What are you talking about. There are no tent encampments in any of those cities, and the homeless populations are not that big. It’s expensive because of demand, because that’s where the jobs are. Original residents? What’s your cutoff year for that?
          Holy shit, I never thought conservatives would be concerned about the homeless or gentrification or the cost of living. What the fuck is happening?

          1. Holy shit, I never thought conservatives would be concerned about the homeless or gentrification or the cost of living

            Spoiler Alert: they’re not really

            1. Holy shit, I never thought conservatives would be concerned about the homeless or gentrification or the cost of living
              Spoiler Alert: they’re not really

              That’s because the pair of you are demagogic tribalists who view your “enemies” through a filter of clichés, fairytales and hate.

              1. They’re both just awful.

          2. There are no tent encampments in any of those cities

            In fairness, yes there are. I’ve seen them in SF, Oakland, and Berkeley. Don’t know about SJ, but I’ll bet they’re there, too.

            BUT, you are correct that the homeless populations are actually very, very tiny compared to the overall populations. The homeless are just very visible because of the tent encampments (enabled by a combination of activists having handed out free tents to all the homeless and local governments tolerating encampments to a certain extent).

        3. You mean the cities with the huge, unemployed homeless populations?

          The homeless population of San Francisco is about 0.0015% of the population of San Francisco.

          1. How does it compare to the homeless population in competently run cities?

            1. I don’t know, but a 0.0015% homelessness rate is not a signal of economic catastrophe.

              1. They had to sterilize the public roads in San Diego because of all the human shit and piss, but hey, beauty is the eye of beholder.

              2. So you’re saying SF has less than 1,500 homeless? I sincerely doubt it’s that low.

  2. seems like this is probably a tough thing to measure definitively.

    1. It’s not, really. Wages today remain the same as they were in 1974 on an inflation-adjusted basis. By analyzing the entire labor force you can mask the impact of immigration since it harms those on the bottom of the income scale and heavily benefits those at the top. It’s the same sleight of hand they trot out when analyzing the impact of NAFTA too.

      1. It is, really. Your inflation study is yet another example of loose interpretation of loose statistics. You can find any kind of inflation result you want, and you don’t even have to search very hard.

        1. Lol. The CPI understates inflation if anything. It’s probable that workers actually took it in the shorts even harder than the study suggests. The also ignores that asset inflation over the same period is somewhere between 800 and 1000 percent. So workers are making the same inflation-adjusted wage, but the inflation-adjusted price of stocks and real estate is twice as high – higher depending on the asset class.

          It’s amazing how ignorant a person can be when his ideology depends on it.

          1. It’s amazing how ignorant a person can be when his ideology depends on it.

            True, that.

            So, your assertion is that the average working class American was wealthier in the mid-70s than they are today? Most everyone in my family is working class and this is true of exactly none of them.

            Were you alive in the mid-70s?

            1. One thing I can say is that my working class parents were able to afford a condo in Orange County in the mid-70s on one income, which is probably not the case today. But that’s not really about inflation.

              1. But that’s not really about inflation.

                What is it about then, the weather? When an asset class has increased nationally at a rate 3-4x consumer inflation as housing has, what exactly the fuck do you chalk it up to? The huge surge in demand in Tulsa?

            2. Everybody I know voted for McGovern!

              Holy fucking Christ bro.

              Yeah, I think I actually am going to go with the 5 decades of recorded public data against the anecdote of your immediate family.

    2. You got that right. So instead of falling back on principles, people make up stats and create bogus studies, all to support whatever their opinion is to start with.

      The principle of self-ownership is a lot simpler. It leads to the basic question which no immigrant-basher can ever answer: by what moral authority do you have the right to control who I do business with, who I hire, who I rent to or sell to or buy from, or even just visit?

      They have none. So they fall back on race, culture, politics, anything they can think of to tell me how to run my life.

      Slavers, the lot.

      1. by what moral authority do you have the right to control who I do business with, who I hire, who I rent to or sell to or buy from, or even just visit?

        That argument didn’t for Gary Glitter. it won’t work for you either. Now go sit in the corner muttering fUCk ofF SlAVeR!!11!!!! to yourself while reality continues apace.

        1. Huh. So consenting adults engaging in a contractual labor relationship is now the same as Gary Glitter having sex with children. Really?

          1. Gary Glitter contracted for sexual services with some people who happened to fall below some arbitrary age limit imposed by the state. Fuck off slaver.

            1. So your argument is, because the state has the just authority to restrict sexual relationships between adults and children, then the state therefore has the just authority to restrict ANY relationship between ANY two people. Is that it?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

              1. Lol. It’s actually the inverse of your argument. Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it?

              2. “because the state has the just authority to restrict sexual relationships between adults and children,”

                The state also won’t allow me to engage in the free market transaction of selling drugs and gambling to kids.
                Oh, you think the state should do those things?
                SLAVERS!
                EVERYONE’S A SLAVER

                God I love this site.

          2. “Huh. So consenting adults engaging in a contractual labor relationship is now the same as Gary Glitter having sex with children. Really?”

            When you have no facts, throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

        2. Oh, it’s this guy again. Why do you keep changing your username?

          1. So you can suck a different asshole every day.

            1. Nobody is gonna assume that you are debating in good faith, if you keep changing your username.

                1. And from the responses, it looks like a lot of people are assuming he is debating in good faith.

                  So you were wrong AND pathetic lolololol.

          2. Hasn’t changed in several months.

            Try objecting to the message, not the messenger.

            1. He was here just yesterday with a different username. You do you, but I don’t bother with commenters like that.

        3. Why not answer the question, Statist??

          1. He knows that he doesn’t have the moral authority to prevent consenting adults to engage in a contractual labor relationship, but being the authoritarian douchebag that he is, he also knows that he doesn’t need a moral authority, only raw power.

          2. I did. You don’t have an unfettered right to contract. You will find that society’s evolving standards of decency and morality impose many limitations on that right. You support the ones like forcing bakers and florists to service homosexual couples so you can eat shit and deal with it when the same moral standards dictate that you can’t hire a contract killer, or an underage prostitute, or rent an F16, or pay a guy from Guatemala 3 bucks an hour to cut your grass while the rest of the costs of his continued survival in the American labor force are socialized onto your neighbors through the abstraction of taxation. Go cry some more.

            1. So “two wrongs make a right” is your guiding moral principle then. Got it.

            2. You don’t have an unfettered right to contract.

              I actually agree with you there. There is such a thing as an unenforceable contract.

              So let’s talk about what are the proper limits that ought to be placed on the right to contract.

              Here’s a couple off the top of my head:
              – Can’t enforce a contract with a person who is unable to give legal consent to a contract. Such as with a minor, certain mentally ill people, critically ill, etc.
              – Can’t enforce a contract that involves violating someone’s rights. So contract killing is right out.

              Now, you want to argue that a contract between two adults, that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, should be declared invalid because of the externalities associated with the execution of that contract (“while the rest of the costs of his continued survival in the American labor force are socialized onto your neighbors through the abstraction of taxation”). Is that your position?

              1. Huh. So when presented with the opportunity to actually discuss the proper restraints on a liberty to contract, the prolific poster “Emeril” goes silent. What a surprise.

                He just flings poo and doesn’t really give a damn about which contracts ought to be valid and which ones oughtn’t.

                1. Lol. Yes, 20 whole minutes while I was engaging you in a different discussion downthread. PWND!

                  Goddamn you’re pathetic.

                  To address your point, if we want to be generous and call it that, your “unable to give legal consent” caveat to contracting with minors is an exercise in question begging – there’s no particular reason other than the arbitrary morality that you ostensibly oppose why a 15 year old can’t sign a contract. No points there, either consistently apply your own logic or fuck off with the sophistry.

                  Now, you want to argue that a contract between two adults, that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, should be declared invalid because of the externalities associated with the execution of that contract

                  Sure, in some cases. The moral authority for that would be that certain externalities are severe enough that society may restrain the rights of the individuals involved. That’s literally the entire foundation of government. If two healthy, consenting, intellectually fit adults contract to build a toxic waste dump next to an elementary school then I’m pretty cool with society saying “Hey, actually, let’s not do that” despite the consequences to the parties. In the same manner that you are cool with society saying “Hey, actually, you have to serve blacks and gays in your cafe” despite the consequences to the parties.

                  1. there’s no particular reason other than the arbitrary morality that you ostensibly oppose why a 15 year old can’t sign a contract.

                    Umm no. It is because minors do not possess the intellectual capacity to give fully informed consent. They don’t fully know what precisely they are signing up for. Think of it this way: Obviously, newborn babies are unable to give consent. On the other end, fully grown adults of, say, at least age 21, are able to give fully informed consent. At SOME POINT between year 0 and year 21, there is a line between “unable to give consent” and “able to give consent”. Where that line is, is to some degree arbitrary, but the EXISTENCE of a line is not. It isn’t just “arbitrary morality”.

                    The moral authority for that would be that certain externalities are severe enough that society may restrain the rights of the individuals involved.

                    Okay then, let’s explore this.

                    1. What is your standard for assessing whether the externalities are “severe enough”? For example, a lot of Democrats seem to believe that the externality of my car emitting carbon dioxide is “severe enough” to justify severely restricting my liberty to enjoy my car. Do they have a point? A lot of Democrats also seem to believe that the externalities of widespread gun ownership are “severe enough” to justify severely restricting my right to bear arms. Do they have a point?

                    2. Do you make a distinction between different types of externalities? What I mean by this, is that in your example of a toxic waste dump, the externalities generated in this case are due to the hazardous nature of the toxic waste itself. But with the externalities of increased spending on welfare, that is an externality that is created by the state itself. It’s not some natural disaster, it’s entirely artificial. Should all externalities be treated the same?

                    1. Oh look what happened. Just as expected, “Emeril” ran away from the conversation when he wasn’t shamed into continuing it.

                    2. Obviously, newborn babies are unable to give consent. On the other end, fully grown adults of, say, at least age 21, are able to give fully informed consent. At SOME POINT between year 0 and year 21, there is a line between “unable to give consent” and “able to give consent”. Where that line is, is to some degree arbitrary, but the EXISTENCE of a line is not. It isn’t just “arbitrary morality”.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      Fuck oh dear bro. You do realize that you’ve just sketched the pro-life argument against abortion, only you’ve moved the scale right? Who knew you were a moral universalist when it came to 15 year olds signing contracts. That 12 months between 15 and 16 when adolescents become mature enough to consent to sex must entail a whole lot of growing up, eh?

                    3. Oh look what happened. Just as expected, “Emeril” ran away from the conversation when he wasn’t shamed into continuing it.

                      Some of us work for a living. If you ever graduate from community college and move out of your mother’s house you’ll understand.

                    4. 1. What is your standard for assessing whether the externalities are “severe enough”?

                      It’s not my standard. I don’t make the rules. Society has that moral authority when it acts collectively whether you wish they did or not. That’s why you are a champion of democracy whenever the mob is on your side and suddenly become an individualist anarchist whenever the mob is violently opposed to your cause.

                      2. Do you make a distinction between different types of externalities?

                      Again, I don’t make the rules. You asked about moral authority. Morals are group ethics. Society sets the standards. If society decides that they’d rather not have Jorge Jimenez Rodriguez driving drunk without a license, stealing social security numbers, obtaining tax rebates, and working under the table, then that’s their moral authority in the same that society decided kids can consent to sex at 16, to get blown apart in a war at 18, but not to drink or vape until they are 21.

              2. Can’t? What’s with all this “Can’t” stuff?

                SLAVER

            3. Sigh.

              Very few here support forcing bakers to do anything.

              You can’t hire a contract killer because you are an accessory to a crime.

              You may not hire a 16 year old prostitute because by definition that relationship is not consensual. (age up for debate)

              You can’t rent an F-16 because it’s not your property and the owner doesn’t want to rent it to you.

              The fact that the guy from Guatemala gets government aid is an indictment of government, not of your freedom to do business with him. But that’s a favorite passtime of statists: use existing government power to justify even more government power.

              1. You may not hire a 16 year old prostitute because by definition that relationship is not consensual.

                By definition? Are you sure about that? Is it because 16 year olds are incapable of consenting to sex? Because that’s demonstrably false – the legally-recognized age of consent is 16 years old in over half of these United States. Or is it because of the legal prohibition on prostitution? Because you ostensibly oppose victimless crimes and the “arbitrary” restraint of contract by government. Hmmmm.

                You can’t rent an F-16 because it’s not your property and the owner doesn’t want to rent it to you.

                In this case the owner also prevents anyone else who might be interested in renting it to me from purchasing it. I thought you opposed restraint of competition? Suddenly it sounds like your free contracting libertarian free for all has a fuck load of rules.

              2. Very few here support forcing bakers to do anything.

                I may be mistaking you for someone else, but a very sizeable majority here supports public accommodation laws in general and compulsory flower arrangement and cake baking for gay weddings in particular. In any case you seem to support a pretty narrow type of free contract.

                1. a very sizeable majority here supports public accommodation laws in general and compulsory flower arrangement and cake baking for gay weddings in particular

                  Nope.

                  1. Sorry, just the entire editorial staff and every person in the comments other than the conservatives who you denigrate as alt-right trolls.

                    You have vocally supported compulsory cake baking over and over again so you can fuck yourself blind.

                2. “A sizeable majority”? That is utterly untrue.

                  1. Who are you going to believe, the moron who thinks that a sexual relationship that is legal in most of the United States by definition cannot be consensual, or your lying eyes?

        4. You didn’t even touch on his point and just fell back on an anecdote to justify your authoritarianism.

          1. No, you’re just unbelievably stupid and need to feign obtuseness in order to preserve your childish ideology. I expanded further on the point above for your benefit if you’d like to pout and piss and moan some more though.

            1. Your “moral authority” comes from where?

              You brought up strawmen like sex with children, showing your hypocrisy on that — on the one hand, you bring up children because you know they can’t consent, that is what makes them children; on the other hand, you pretend that my stand implies there is no difference — but you are too cowardly to actually say so, because you know it isn’t so.

              Like all cowards, you imply all sorts of shit without having the guts to actually say it. You somehow think that is clever.

              1. Cool strawman. Convincing replies to the multiple posts fully explicating the ridiculousness of your self-contradictory ideology too.

                fUCk oFf SlaVEr!!!!11!!!!

  3. I wonder if that study really applies to the current situation in the U.S. If you have a large influx of laborers who are taking less than the lawfully required minimum wage because they’re taking the money “under the table”, isn’t that a different situation?

    Of course, if we make those workers all legal the employers will be obliged to pay them minimum wage–theoretically, at least. But since that will drive up the labor costs I imagine those employers will look for other solutions.

    1. It’s not just “under the table” workers scabbing for less than minimum wage. The tech sector pays H1B workers less than their American counterparts in contravention of the law. They are able to do so because they self-certify that they are paying market-rate wages. There is no oversight. They also make extensive use of the OPT program, which allows them to hire foreign students after graduation with both the student and employer exempted from FICA taxes.

      1. So now we have “libertarians” advocating for a minimum wage.

        1. “Emeril” here isn’t a libertarian, he’s a statist douchebag who comes here to mock and laugh at libertarians, when he’s not gaslighting them.

          1. You aren’t a libertarian either. This site benefits from the diversity of my neoliberalism and your orthodox Marxism in the same way that the labor market benefits from tens of millions of illiterate third world pig fuckers. Life’s a banquet.

            1. You’re as much of a “neoliberal” as I’m a Marxist. Which is to say, not at all.

              1. You’re also a hopeless liar, thanks for making that clear.

                1. Of all the things to accuse me of being, “Marxist” is about the most ridiculous.

                  But sure, you’re a “neoliberal” who supports arbitrary labor restrictions and minimum wages.

                  1. You’re probably right, actually. You do support supranational global governance by a technocratic administrative state, but you’re probably ignorant enough that you don’t actually know the source of those ideas.

                    Labor standards and minimum wages were robustly in place during the neoliberal resurgence in the latter half of the 20th century, btw.

                    1. You do support supranational global governance by a technocratic administrative state

                      lol sure whatevs. I’ve never supported some supranational technostate. This is just a strawman.

                      It’s pretty rich to call yourself a “neoliberal” when here you are supporting minimum wages and arbitrary labor restrictions. The actual neoliberals work to REDUCE such things, not give full-throated endorsement of them.

                    2. You do support supranational global governance by a technocratic administrative state, but you’re probably ignorant enough that you don’t actually know the source of those ideas.

                      I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that you don’t seem to know the source of those ideas, either, because you seem to think “Marx.” Which is incorrect.

                    3. Your notions of class-based oppression, however . . . .

                    4. Lol. Yes, centralized global governance appeared from the ether just coincidentally right after Marx happened to publish several volumes on revolutionary socialism that advocated for an internationalist central state as a stopping point between late stage capitalism and stateless utopian socialism – which is coming any day now!

        2. I do support a minimum wage, as does Nick Gillespie and several other Reason staffers btw. But that wasn’t actually the point. You’re just really stupid and playing obtuse to avoid having to address something that makes you uncomfortable.

          If there’s going to be a minimum wage it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to base huge swaths of the economy on gray market and black market labor to get around it.

          That also wasn’t the point though. Immigrants displace low wage workers. That’s uncontroversial even in the footnotes of the studies that Reason likes to cite – they just ignore it to focus on the benefits to the wealthy so that it “evens out”. No, the real point was that high-skilled immigrants ALSO lower wages, despite protestations to the contrary, and in contravention of relevant immigration law.

          1. Emeril Lagasse
            July.25.2019 at 11:30 am
            “I do support a minimum wage,…”

            TRULY stupid.
            Fuck off, slaver.

            1. Yup. The whole lot of em.

              Now, whose kid wants a heroin smoothie?

              1. Now, whose kid wants a heroin smoothie?

                Several people have pointed out what a ridiculous strawman that is, but you just won’t let go of it, will you?

          2. If there’s going to be a minimum wage it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to base will transfer huge swaths of the economy to gray market and black market labor to get around it.

            FTFY

      2. They took our jobs!

        Every libertarian policy (Right-to-work, foreign outsourcing, increased immigration, H1B) always comes with claims that all of it together has no effect on (or actually increases!) wages.

        But the reason these policies are aggressively lobbied for by capital is not because of some doctrinaire adherence to libertarian dogma. It is to chase lower labor costs. If there is no change, I guess that means that capital’s pursuit of cheap labor has failed?

        1. When you have a choice between two manufactured goods, one priced lower than the other but of equal quality, you’re going to buy the cheaper one every time.

          That must mean that prices decline over time, right?

          1. It’s telling that you think people are interchangeable in the same as manufactured goods. And also think that economies of scale don’t exist.

  4. Given how entrepreneurial immigrants tend to be, letting more foreigners into United States might actually be a partial solution to slow wage growth, not its cause.

    Is Reason conceding that the US has experienced slow wage growth? Funny how that happened during a steady increase in immigration.

    I am surprised that Reason is even trying to make this argument. If later we see evidence that immigration does hurt wages, especially of those of low-skilled natives, is Reason going to change its mind on the issue?

    Of course not.

    Reason should just stick to insisting that borders violate the NAP and calling anyone who objects to anything less than Open Borders a “Racist.” No amount of studies or data will ever invalidate those arguments.

    1. The ironic thing is that they’re actually trying to argue both sides of the issue at the same time. Immigration is good because it lowers prices for everyone… but it actually raises wages? Labor is an input cost. If more labor = higher wages, then how are prices falling?

      1. “If more labor = higher wages, then how are prices falling?”

        “Uhh…tariffs?” Reason editor

      2. Because labor is not the sole basis for computing the price of products and services. For example, you can have an increase in wages and a decrease in price, if the cost of production goes down due to economies of scale, more productive efficiency, a lower cost of transportation, a lower cost of raw materials, and so on.

        1. In which case labor wasn’t the relevant input factor and the immigrant labor is irrelevant to the calculation. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

          1. That doesn’t follow at all.

          2. In which case labor wasn’t the relevant input factor and the immigrant labor is irrelevant to the calculation. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

            No, you missed his point. More labor can cost more, but also often means greater productivity. You may employ more people, pay each one less, and produce more than you would otherwise, thus lowering your prices, which in the aggregate across the economy leads to an increase in the worker’s purchasing power independent of how you denominate the wages in currency.

            Your trouble is that your economic thinking is steeped in Marxism, despite your loud protests to the contrary.

            1. Thanks for clearing that up, I didn’t realize he had a spokesman. But let’s substitute the point he didn’t make that you are trying to make for him anyway.

              More labor can cost more, but also often means greater productivity.

              Dynamic synergies amirite? We should open a consultancy together.

              The problem with this is that labor demonstrably does not cost more. The price of labor in the aggregate is stagnant and in many industries has fallen precipitously. You aren’t getting productivity out of increased labor costs. You’re getting it mostly out of automation and outsourcing. Which is awesome for the moneyed class and not so awesome for the working class. Again, thanks for proving my point.

      3. “The ironic thing is that they’re actually trying to argue both sides of the issue at the same time. Immigration is good because it lowers prices for everyone… but it actually raises wages? Labor is an input cost. If more labor = higher wages, then how are prices falling?”

        Our new statist wants us to believe that the immigrants don’t have to buy things like, oh, food. Therefore they are only ‘an input’
        You have to be stupid in a particular manner to believe horseshit like that.
        Fuck off, slaver.

        1. Don’t try to comment on things you don’t understand you sad old fucking cocksucker.

          1. “Don’t try to comment on things you don’t understand you sad old fucking cocksucker.”

            I’d suggest the same, which means you have nothing to say about anything.
            Fuck off, slaver

      4. STOP with that kind of logic

    2. You mean, studies don’t change the minds of people who have an emotional commitment to a particular position? You’re probably right. But that swings both ways.

      No amount of studies which demonstrate that illegal immigrants aren’t a bunch of murderous psychotic violent criminals will convince the die-hard Trumpists to change their position on illegal immigration.

      Nonetheless, it’s important to know the actual facts and data behind a particular position. If one argues from a deontological premise, then there are going to be likely negative consequences from that position. It’s important to be aware of those nonetheless.

      1. People like me aren’t opposing illegal immigration on economic grounds.

        1. Yeah I figured that part out already.

        2. Way to own the “dirty brown people are ruining our wonderful paradise” position!

          1. More like “If your first act in being here is to violate our laws, I don’t see the benefit in having you here”.

            1. But this idea is predicated on the assumption that the laws in question are worth respecting. Are they? That is the real question.

              1. Yes.

                Thanks for playing.

                You know who has a seat at the table to debate that question? Citizens.

                Not dudes who just strolled across the border.

                It’d be like me walking into your house and pissing on your floor because, dammit, a toilet SHOULD be here!

      2. No amount of studies which demonstrate that illegal immigrants aren’t a bunch of murderous psychotic violent criminals will convince the die-hard Trumpists to change their position on illegal immigration.

        And no amount of studies which demonstrate that legal and illegal immigrants reduce wages, or basic crime data showing the immigrant prison population for that matter, will convince the die-hard international communists to change their position on open borders. You and your sock are demonstrating that very aptly just a few posts above where you stick your fingers in your ears and scream REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when faced with data you don’t like.

      3. Alex Muresianu took a study last month that showed:
        a) beer makers profits are up
        b) there are more breweries now than ever before, employing more people
        c) brewery suppliers are doing well and increasing jobs

        And concluded that Drumpf’s aluminum tariffs had cost 40,000 “beer industry” jobs, because buried in the report
        there were fewer waitress jobs (minimum wage hikes in Prog cities)
        and fewer grocery stockboy jobs (Amazon, Shipt, store delivery apps)

        Never belief anything he writes, especially if you can’t follow all the links and see for yourself

  5. And while high-skilled immigrants disproportionately found the largest American companies,

    Maybe we could break down those Fortune 500 founding immigrants and their descendants by country of origin or ethnicity.

    On that list I see one guy from Sub-Sahara Africa, but he’s actual
    an ethnic Indian.

    There’s one guy from Brazil, who looks to be Jewish, and anyway he renounced his citizenship and moved to Singapore.

    There are 4 guys from Taiwan. So they are punching above their weight.

    Everyone else seems to be from Canada or Europe. So maybe we should orient or immigration policies to prioritize: Canada, Europe and Taiwan. Or would that be bad, because it’s noticing.

    1. Wait, you mean to tell me that not a single Ecuadorian dirt farmer who schlepped across Central America and Mexico, then specifically avoided ports of entry when crossing into the USA has founded a Fortune 500 company?

      I’m shocked!

  6. Is Tucker anti-immigrant or anti illegal immigrant because this often gets unfortunately conflated including here at Reason.

    1. more of a dork people should shun but somehow has a show.

    2. He’s anti-illegal and anti-refugee, but when it comes to legal immigration he’s just a NIMBY unless the immigrant is white

  7. I don’t see any good reason to question the idea that an increase in the supply of unskilled workers will give unskilled workers who are already here more competition.

    I just have no sympathy for people who are so pathetic that they can’t compete with unskilled workers, and I find the suggestion that the government should protect them from the negatives consequences of their own poor decisions to be entirely revolting.

    It’s the same things with international trade. There’s no good reason to pretend that foreign competition won’t hurt domestic producers who can’t compete. That’s no reason why the government should get involved in interfering with my freedom to buy from whomever I please. If you can’t compete, then you should be trounced by the competition.

    Losing industries, losing companies, and losing individuals being free to get trounced by the competition is one of the things that makes America great. The reason our GDP per capita is six times the size of Russia’s is because Russia protected its industries and workers from competition for 60 years. They’re suffering from the lack of all that creative destruction, and we’re flourishing because of creative destruction.

    Creative destruction is the source of economic growth. You can break it into various kinds. There’s new efficiencies from foreign trade. There are increases in productivity from technology. Whatever flavor you want to talk about–technology or foreign competition–we’re talking about creative destruction. If you can’t compete, then you should fail. If you can’t compete with the foreigners who come here from Mexico and the Central America–man of whom have no more than eighth grade education and can’t speak English, . . .

    There are negative consequences associated with making bad choices. If you got pregnant at 18, became a drug addict, or got a felony on your record, there should be negative consequences associated with that. If you failed to move to another part of the country where there are better jobs available, there should be negative consequences for that. If you voted for socialist slobs who taxed the fuck out of industries and companies that would have hired you if they weren’t paying for the welfare state, then there are and should be negative consequences associated with that.

    Trying to game the laws of economics by using the government to limit other people’s choices may help for a short period of time, but it’s not a long term solution to any of your problem–not if the “problem” you’re trying to solve is that there are negative consequences associated with your own poor choices. The solution to that problem is to stop making bad choices.

    1. I just have no sympathy for people who are so pathetic that they can’t compete with unskilled workers

      So much for the dignity of work and the humanity of everyone regardless of their intellectual capabilities. Illiterate brown people good. Illiterate white people bad. You’re a real special kind of racist asshole.

      1. You’re the one who brought up race here, not Ken.

        Americans of all colors grow up with access to a “free” (to them) public education system. So what is the excuse for *Americans* to graduate highschool with so few marketable skills that they are out-competed by actual illiterate and uneducated Guatemalans? What exactly did these Americans DO while in school? Evidently nothing.

        Sure some people are so developmentally disabled that they don’t have the capacity to function as a normal healthy adult. But what is the excuse for the rest of them?

        1. He specifically mentioned nationality, which is a decent proxy for “race” in this context. But I know you have trouble reading things, more trouble comprehending, and then you just lie about everything anyway.

          American public schools suck and many students end up without a good education. Especially inner city blacks, who are the group most harmed and displaced by low-wage immigration. Most low-wage American workers are also not being fairly outcompeted. They have to abide by labor laws and restrictions that the mostly-illegal immigrants who displace them do not. When an 8th grade educated Mexican roofer can take 10 dollars per hour with no FICA, no insurance, and no worker’s comp, but a black high school dropout can’t negotiate for less than minimum wage without risking jail and comes with all of those state-mandated costs that will actually cost his employer more than the hourly rate of his labor, the black high school dropout was not “outcompeted”.

          1. He specifically mentioned nationality, which is a decent proxy for “race” in this context.

            Oh no no no, you don’t get to get away with that. Either “racist” has a very strict and narrow definition, or it doesn’t. And frankly, while I disagree with Ken on many things, I have never seen him post anything that could even be perceived as racist in any way. So just go stuff it.

            American public schools suck and many students end up without a good education.

            This is true. However, at a bare minimum, it provides ACCESS to education and development of skills beyond that of a typical illiterate Guatemalan.

            Most low-wage American workers are also not being fairly outcompeted. They have to abide by labor laws and restrictions that the mostly-illegal immigrants who displace them do not. When an 8th grade educated Mexican roofer can take 10 dollars per hour with no FICA, no insurance, and no worker’s comp, but a black high school dropout can’t negotiate for less than minimum wage without risking jail and comes with all of those state-mandated costs that will actually cost his employer more than the hourly rate of his labor, the black high school dropout was not “outcompeted”.

            First, if an employee is paid under the table, and the arrangement is caught, it’s not the employee that gets punished, it’s the employer.

            Second, the WHOLE POINT is, if you graduate highschool with no skills other than those of an illiterate Guatemalan, UR DOING IT WRONG.

            1. First, if an employee is paid under the table, and the arrangement is caught, it’s not the employee that gets punished, it’s the employer.

              You are 100% incorrect. Both parties are punished separately for different violations of the law. An illegal alien gets deported for the same violations that would send an American to tax prison.

              Second, the WHOLE POINT is, if you graduate highschool with no skills other than those of an illiterate Guatemalan, UR DOING IT WRONG.

              Very few people graduate high school with a marketable skill. That’s what entry level employment used to be about until the entire sector became dominated by black market labor. Furthermore, you can’t just handwave away the fact that a good many students in this country, mostly black ones, get a piss poor education and have no means of entering the work force besides their backs. It’s pretty funny to see you of all people who harps endlessly about the structural disadvantages of the poor old negro telling them they need to go fuck themselves and die because the education system failed them and some illegal Guatemalan can cut an affluent couple’s hedges for less than he can owing almost entirely to a discrepancy in regulatory costs of employment. I love bringing out the racist piece of shit in you. It’s surprisingly easy.

      2. “So much for the dignity of work and the humanity of everyone regardless of their intellectual capabilities.”

        I worked in construction in San Diego for a while–right out of high school. I was never the only one on site who couldn’t speak Spanish. There were always hard working guys around who could compete with foreign labor just fine.

        I had a landscaping business for a while after that. Being able to speak English with my customers was a big advantage.

        I worked my way through prep-school working on local farms, and when I got old enough, I took a job in a local saw mill. I never had any lack of respect for any of the hard working people I knew–no matter their lack of education.

        In fact, it’s probably because of them that I have no sympathy for lazy and pathetic people that can’t compete. If you really knew people who work hard for a living, you’d know that a lack of respect for lazy people who can’t keep up is pretty common among hard workers. When I got into healthcare, the software industry, and commercial real estate, that work ethic really did me well.

        I worked with a guy who’d survived a Vietnamese death camp. He came here on a boat with nothing but the lash scars on his back. I’ve known a bunch of guys who made the American dream working their asses off after sneaking across the border. I have a tremendous amount of respect for them, their work ethic, and their success–despite their lack of education. I have no respect for lazy wanna be union types who’ve had all sorts of advantages over those who came here with nothing–and still can’t compete. A free and just society should have an economy that crushes those lazy parasites under its wheels.

        1. There’s this thing called, “The Protestant Work Ethic”. You should learn more about it.

          1. “You should learn more about it.”

            Our new statist isn’t capable of this ‘learning’ you post about.

          2. I actually grew up Calvinist until I realized at about age 12 that it was not only a bunch of bullshit but also the most evil, oppressive, and twisted form of Christian fundamentalism ever conceived. You’ve certainly got the combination of cruelty, stupidity, arrogance, and self-righteousness down. I just didn’t recognize it as religious fundamentalism on a site that is so hostile to religion. You wear it well.

          3. By the way, I’ll be thinking of your good yankee work ethic when I’m writing your welfare checks and paying for your health care for the next 30 years on top of subsidizing your lawn boy, you useless old fuck. What a self made rugged individualist you are. Legend.

        2. Yep. All people who do not follow exactly the path that you did of moving from manual labor to office work are lazy pieces of subhuman shit who deserve to die. Being satisfied with a particular station in life, or unable to advance past a certain level of proficiency, means that you should be crushed underfoot by your betters and you better shut up and smile when they decide that the labor laws they enacted ostensibly for your benefit are too inconvenient.

          1. (by the way, I actually worked in my family’s third generation construction company for many years in my youth, but I’m not a sociopath incapable of empathy so I don’t hold a burning hatred for the people I worked with who spent their entire lives in the same trade)

    2. Absolutely on point.

      But the authoritarians who hate illegals are nothing but central planners who believe that their particular 5-year plan will work. They can mold the economy to perfection! You just gotta break a few eggs.

      Also, “wars” against consensual peaceful behaviors work so well, right?

    3. The reason our GDP per capita is six times the size of Russia’s is because Russia protected its industries and workers from competition for 60 years.

      Yeah it was definitely that and not the wanton killing of 60 million of their own countrymen. Good to see you’re stupid and historically illiterate as well as racist and eugenicist.

      1. Well, they STILL had more people, and more natural resources, even after all the killing

        1. Yeah, Switzerland is the most populous nation with a higher GDP per capita than ours–with far fewer people. They only have 8.5 million people!

          Anyway, I’m not sure he understands the concept of “per capita”, much less what GDP per capita stands for. Given some of his other comments, it wouldn’t surprise me if he doesn’t know what GDP is, any of the standard ways it’s measured, or what it might signify and why. Regardless, having more people makes being a wealthy country on a per capita basis even harder, and we have a higher GDP per capita than anyone with a population our size.

          Even if you looked at the EU as a single unit, France and the UK have a GDP per capita about $20,000 less–per person–than we do. Germany is only about $14,000 per person behind the U.S. And the reason isn’t because their population has been wiped out by communists recently. It’s because we’re more capitalist than they are, and our economy has been regularly subjected to creative destruction.

          1. You’re cute when you try to be condescending. Stupid and arrogant is my absolute favorite.

            Suggesting that protectionism is the reason why Soviet Russia had an anemic GDP is utterly and completely retarded for every single value of GDP, Soviet, and Russia. A communist revolution and 5 decades of wanton slaughter is not a labor market distortion you absolute fuckwit.

    4. Also, having a permanent underclass of tens of millions of desperate people dependent on social safety net support in addition to their meager wages to survive so that consumers of labor may benefit from decreased input costs while socializing the externalities is as much an attempt to try to game the laws of economics as price supports so that providers of labor may benefit from increased wages. The actual market already operates under constraints that do not exist in the high school level textbook models that you think describe reality.

      1. Also, having a permanent underclass of tens of millions of desperate people dependent on social safety net support in addition to their meager wages to survive so that consumers of labor may benefit from decreased input costs while socializing the externalities is as much an attempt to try to game the laws of economics as price supports so that providers of labor may benefit from increased wages.

        You’ve just described a good chunk of West Virginia.

        1. Right. You’re the one trying to argue that’s a good model for the national economy because brown people in oppressive poverty and welfare state dependency is economic efficiency while white people in oppressive poverty and welfare state dependency is a richly-deserved comeuppance.

          1. I said nothing about white or brown. I am simply making the point that your complaints about working people also taking advantage of social safety net programs is not limited to immigrants. Nothing about ‘comeuppance’.

            The problem associated with low-wage work being subsidized by welfare programs is not limited to immigrants. It’s a ubiquitous problem. So what is your plan to deal with it?

            1. The problem associated with low-wage work being subsidized by welfare programs is not limited to immigrants.

              By no means! That’s what it makes it so perplexing when you advocate for increasing the supply of sub-poverty wage individuals whilst insisting that it imposes no costs on anyone except you and the immigrant your mom hires to clean her pool and occasionally snake her drain.

      2. “Also, having a permanent underclass of tens of millions of desperate people dependent on social safety net support in addition to their meager wages to survive so that consumers of labor may benefit from decreased input costs while socializing the externalities is as much an attempt to try to game the laws of economics as price supports so that providers of labor may benefit from increased wages.”

        Underneath all that communist babbling, there’s a parasite mentality. You think people are desperate and dependent on a host because you think like a parasite. The rest of the world isn’t fleas and ticks. That’s just what you see when you look in the mirror.

        1. You think people are desperate and dependent on a host because you think like a parasite.

          I think sub-min wage workers are desperate and dependent because they openly say they are desperate – it’s the basis of their asylum claims – and are demonstrably dependent – they receive transfer payments in order to stay alive because they do not earn enough money to do so. Reality is not a communist conspiracy, and when I’m writing my monthly check to your cabana boy so that you can save 3 bucks an hour, you don’t get to lecture me about parasites “gaming the laws of economics”.

  8. More open borders shilling from Reason today…it doesn’t take much effort to realize that illegal immigration does not cause offsetting increases in demand, never mind net increases. They depress wages by increasing the supply of labor and by virtue of being illegal, working for much less. Then, instead of spending what they earn in our economy, they ship it off to Mexico where their families spend it on, you guessed it, Mexican made goods, not American exports.

    Deport all illegals.

    1. awildseaking
      July.25.2019 at 11:39 am
      “More open borders shilling from Reason today…”

      More protectionist shilling from dimwits today.

  9. National Conservatism = Jingosim?

    1. Jingoism, an attitude of belligerent nationalism, the English equivalent of the term chauvinism. The term apparently originated in England during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 when the British Mediterranean squadron was sent to Gallipoli to restrain Russia and war fever was aroused.

      Stop trying to use words you don’t comprehend, you look even dumber than you would otherwise.

      1. Awesome! It can look up a word in a dictionary, copy and paste the definition, and not realize that the definition proves the point of Dillinger.

        1. Which part of this article about the effects of immigration on wages do you think has anything to do with belligerent foreign policy you hopeless fucking retard? Jesus goddamn fuck.

          1. Hmm, the reader will note that the definition does not say belligerent foreign policy but rather belligerent nationalism.
            Hating foreigners and wanting to put up walls and stop trade are belligerent nationalism to me.
            “War fever”? I suspect that it arouses lil Emeril.

            1. The term apparently originated in England during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 when the British Mediterranean squadron was sent to Gallipoli to restrain Russia and war fever was aroused.

              bel·lig·er·ent (bə-lĭj′ər-ənt)
              adj.
              1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
              2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
              n.
              One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war.

              You heard it here first, folks. Arguing over how many immigrants to admit in a country with a current quota of around 1.1 million new legal immigrant arrivals per year and about 200,000 illegal immigrant arrivals per year is basically like war.

              1. definition from 1877 = everyone’s wrong but you. rock on, Webster.

                1. The definition hasn’t changed though, here’s another one: Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive foreign policy, such as a country’s advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests.

                  So unless we are going to war with Mexico over immigration, its not quite at the level of jingoism

                  1. Nice, the first literate commenter I’ve run across at Reason.

  10. The law of Supply and Demand – revoked by a “Libertarian” magazine.

  11. Legal or illegal immigration?

    Are illegal immigrants disproportionately numbered among the founders of Fortune 500 companies?

    What’s that? No? Ah.

    Well then, illegal immigrants must start 25% of American businesses…No? Ah.

    They’re probably not disproportionately responsible for low income entrepreneurship either, are they?

    What’s that? You’re conflating illegal and legal immigrants again to confuse the issue and make people illegally entering the country look like a net plus by hiding them among legitimate migrants.

    Oh, you’re lying. AGAIN.

    Sad.

    1. Did your ancestors sign any papers when they came over?

      Mine just killed the natives and took their shit from them.

      1. Did your ancestors sign any papers when they came over?

        Yes.

  12. With all the reflexive insults, is lil Emeril Hihn, or Shriek, or whoever? I always lost track of that.

    He seems just a bit too sane to be them though.

    1. I’m the ghost of your dead uncle. Now suck on my peepee.

    2. Not sure, but the stupidity is several feet thick.

  13. George Borjas disagrees. He found a long-run negative impact of 4.8% on the wages of high-school dropouts (i.e., those most likely to be harmed by competition from high levels of immigration by unskilled workers).

  14. Indeed, immigrants play a substantial role in American entrepreneurship. Immigrants make up 15 percent of the U.S. population but start around 25 percent of new businesses.

    Of course, what you manage to leave out here is that the immigrants that create businesses are overwhelmingly from Europe and Asia. The ones from Africa and South America, not so much.

    Seriously, has this rag ever published a single honest article about immigration?

  15. What a disappointing article from REASON. This is just idiotic. Perhaps M. Muresianu should have been an economics intern instead of a journalism intern. The reasoning defies first principles. A significant influx of low wage earners is going to lower wages at the low end of the wage distribution and is not going to somehow stimulate demand. That’s just nuts. A given empirical study can show almost anything because so many other things are moving around and confound the measurements of wage growth and unemployment. But we know from first principles that if you keep adding low wage workers, wages will drop and a minimum wage just puts people out of work. No magic saves them in the end.

    1. “A significant influx of low wage earners is going to lower wages at the low end of the wage distribution and is not going to somehow stimulate demand.”

      Of course not. Those brown people don’t eat, they don’t drive cars, none of that.

      1. I like the way we assume production is always local when it comes to immigration. Given that with the exception of food, few consumer products are still produced in the US, the fact that the immigrant consumes things like cars, consumer electronics and clothes isn’t bloody likely to be producing many jobs, unless we’re counting jobs produced in Mexico or China.

  16. Over time, I’ve realized that you can find a study that says virtually anything you want it to.

  17. Yes the Alt Right is wrong on immigration but at the same time the Right (not alt right) is also correct. The law states the method that a person can immigrate to this country. Also the UN recommends a person who is a refuge apply in the first nation for asylum where they will no longer be under the danger of their home country. Most of the immigrants entering the US are of the economic nature. Yes the US has and will benefit from them. But the US also has the right to limit the number and skills of economic immigrant that it takes in.
    Now if those who don’t like the law that the US now has then instead of breaking the law change it. When laws are broken without consequence causes all laws are held in lower value in the eyes of the residents of the nation.

  18. Wow, so Reason finally comes out against the baseline laws of economics. Impressive. Their shift to full blown Progressivisim is immanent.

    Generally speaking, if you expand the supply of anything you also reduce the price ceteris paribus.

    The author certainly tries to pretend that immigrants are a special case, but given that they’re using statistics from legal immigrants and extrapolating into a dissimilar group…well lets just say they’re either stupid or a liar. Take your pick.

    Fun Fact: IF you were to massively restrict immigration, U.S. wages would skyrocket.

    Bonus Fun Fact: U.S. wages skyrocketing via massively restricted immigration is also a stupid and destructive idea.

    Both sides of this argument are idiots, and our current immigration policy is actually centrist. This is why everyone hates it, of course.

    1. Also, just curious if the Mariel Boatlift folks ever paid back that 100 million (in 1980 dollars, a rough armchair calculation puts that at 310 million dollars in 1980) the government spent on them. I’m assuming that we’re saying that this money had a ROI in bringing those immigrants up to U.S. labor standards.

      Should we also assume that spending 310 million dollars on every 125,000 people will also be a net gain in labor productivity?

      This is perhaps why you’ll find that certain people on the left and right want more immigration. They believe the ROI is greater in giving immigrants money than letting Americans keep it.

  19. Now that we have this evidence, we can all stop with the “economic anxiety” that pollutes these threads and live in peace with our brown neighbors.

    Why do I think most of you will continue to serve warmed-over spoonfed horseshit to justify being anti-immigrant?

    I think if you think that too much of a supply of humans causes a decrease in wages (which is a collectivist problem anyway and not really the concern of individualists), then why not start with citizens? They’re already here, pumping out babies, and nobody’s telling them not to. I fact, many of you same goobers want to force them to pump out children against their will, at the hands of the federal government.

    What could possibly be the common thread in all this nonsense?

  20. A massive increase in the number of people does NOT raise demand as much as it raises supply. In case you morons forgot, in modern times production is so efficient that producer-workers are outnumbered by consumers by 10,000-1 if not even worse. Why would an increase of 10,000 people create so much demand that more than 1 job is created? This isn’t the 1700s, stuff isn’t made by freaking whittling. In modern times we’re clearly on the other side of the scale.

    Countries only “don’t have a right” to stop immigration if you’re an autistic libertarian extremist retard. In the real world, states exist and are charged with looking out for the welfare of their own people, and are given the power to do so. Anything predicated on an imaginary libertopia is not a valid opinion.

  21. Huh; funny. The last statistics I saw from the US Census showed that southern immigrants (by a 2/3rds margin) were using up more government resources (welfare systems) than any other category. Asian being the lone exception but even Asian immigrants took slightly more than native. Seems to me under those circumstances that immigrants aren’t all so terribly hard at work as this article seems to say they are.

  22. There’s no percentage in consequentialist ethics.

  23. Thank you for sharing excellent information. Your website is so cool. I am impressed by the details that you have on this website. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject.
    http://www.helphpsupport.com/