The Democrats will run on the $12 minimum wage.
The Republicans will run on economic nationalism.
Economists and libertarians will watch this from under the bus, as usual.
Have a nice day.
The Democrats will run on the $12 minimum wage.
The Republicans will run on economic nationalism.
Economists and libertarians will watch this from under the bus, as usual.
Have a nice day.
Invest in those automated fountain drink filler carousels.
I recently drove through some areas of Arizona where the median family income is less than a $12/hr equivalent annual wage. It will be interesting to see what happens to such places if the wage is raised significantly.
“Economic nationalism”? I bet the Republicans vote for the new trade agreements with Asia and Europe, and the Democrats don’t.
The Repulicans favor a lot of LEGAL immigration, but zero illegal immigration. It makes a difference. It is not nationalism. It is the civilization – barbarism axis.
Gee, if the only problem is illegal immigration, wouldn’t that be solved by declaring all immigration legal?
The question is, what level of immigration is optimal? It seems that the answer to this question from the Democrats and establishment Republicans (and probably some Republicans who currently pretend to be non-establishment, such as Gov. Walker) is, however many people want to come. It doesn’t seem to concern these grandees, or smart guys like our gracious host, that letting anyone who wants to live in the US do so may reduce the quality of life for most of the existing citizenry.
The people with little to lose already come in. It really couldn’t be any worse if we sent out formal invitations.
I would like to invite them to leave, and give them some encouragement by penalizing their law-breaking employers (the more harshly the better). If the US were a rationally governed country (I mean from the point of view of the interests of its citizens, not from the point of view of conforming to the “moral” philosophy of Robert Nozick or maximizing a statistical artifact deemed to represent global utility), these wonderful people wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Why, though? Do you live in California?
N.b., I know all the standard arguments. I am wondering if you are seeing some practical problems.
Btw, it seems like a long shot that immigration is the one and only thing that we are adhering with Robert Notice on. And even if it were, it wouldn’t. I don’t know what Nozick would say, but you can’t have something like a free welfare state and free immigration.
However, I have seen little evidence that immigration is the problem yet.
I also don’t think it is about an optimal level of immigration, bu who comes.
Immigration may not be a problem for you personally, Andrew, but it is making life worse for most Americans, not all of whom are affluent professional women thrilled to have their kids raised by nannies from Guatemala. Ever think about the effects of immigration on public education, state and local taxes, and the cost of housing in good neighborhoods?
As to your not seeing “evidence” that immigration is a problem – I suppose it depends on how you define “problem.”
“I also don’t think it is about an optimal level of immigration, bu[t] who comes.”
“Who comes” is mostly unskilled peasants from Central America. But high skill immigration has its downside too – see the reports about Disney’s mass firing of its IT staff and replacement of them with drones from Asia.
I know, I know – the standard libertarian/free-market-ideologue answer is that designing immigration laws for the benefit of a country’s existing citizenry is a form of “rent seeking.”
I was referring to Nozick as an example of a libertarian ideologue, not suggesting that advocates for open borders are consciously following his theories. But the people at Econlog, for example, seem to come from a view of the world similar to his.
My point is that people like yourself, and most others at this site, are either blind to this facet of the immigration issue or else frankly don’t think the US should give greater consideration to the collective interests of its own citizens (as opposed to foreigners) in setting immigration policy.
I’m not sure you know me as well as you seem to think.
The problem is that the problem “is not in the data” as they say. First generation immigrants are less criminal. Following that it reverts to the mean. Maybe a little more maybe a little less. So far, they pay more taxes than they collect in benefits. Yes, Democrats want to screw that up, but that is a speculative problem not a today problem.
Since the recession the influx has reversed sign. Thus I ask if you live in California or somewhere else that seems to be doing it poorly.
I’m not a fan of undercutting labor prices, but moving plants to Mexico does a fine job of that too, btw. Yeah, I’ve pondered all those other problems. Most of them can be remedied- Not if Democrats get a permanent majority, of course, but then again if that happened they might be the least of our problems.
Andrew, I give you credit for recognizing that the questions I raised at least deserve to be asked. I am skeptical of the facile answers you offer, but don’t have time to debate. Researchers in this area, as in some others, tend to find the answers they are looking for. Also, direct “welfare benefits” do not include all the costs low-socioeconomic-level immigrants impose on government, particularly government at the state and local level.
I don’t live in California, but in NYC. We have no shortage of immigrants here, as perhaps you have heard. I work in the state court system, and I can tell you that recent immigrants are well represented – probably over-represented – among criminal defendants, respondents in Family Court proceedings (juvenile delinquency and parental neglect), parties to dubious car accident cases, and plaintiffs in construction accident personal injury cases. It seems to me that the US is in the process of vastly expanding its already large underclass for no particularly good reason. However, dealing with this enlarged underclass will necessitate expanding employment for various kinds of government workers (administrators, social workers, lawyers, police), workers for government contractors (non-profit and otherwise), and endless “diversity consultants” in all areas of endeavor. And it will ensure permanent Democrat control of the federal government (to the extent that goal has not already been accomplished). Take that FWIW.
Milton Friedman said something to the effect that you can’t have open borders with a welfare state. Of course, he wanted to get rid of the welfare state. That’s not happening.
Thanks for your efforts here, djf. I am just astounded at the cult-like worship of the immigrant in our current political climate. We’ve got abysmal economic/cultural/political/demographic metrics and people act like the Immigrant is a solution. The plains Indians took up Ghost dancing in a desperate attempt to bring back their old way of life; today we worship the Immigrant in a similar desperate effort.