It's crazy to invite illiterate crime-prone peasants.
Yet, no major newspaper has that vastly more pertinent op-ed. I wonder why. (Ironic sigh......) I wonder if there's an overarching, unstated purpose to such mendacity.
You mean cost-reducing peasants? The fact that these "commodities" have now become a dispensable burden doesn't mean the unofficial policies of the 80's and 90's of massive illegal immigration were pointless.
This sort of attitude is disgusting. As if the the majority of US citizens can not be classified as crime-prone peasants in one wanted to say it.
The US is a county of immigrants. The US is only 300 years old and it's hugely amusing to see US citizens talk poorly about the countries of their parents, grand parents, and great grandparents.
If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants.
There comes a point where it is prudent for the current residents to limit hordes of competitors pouring in to take the resources and infrastructure built within the past hundreds of years when their ancestors cozily stayed in their home countries while pioneers busted their nuts off as indentured servants or lived in isolation without "modern" infrastructure.
Are you arguing that 300 years is too new? How about 400 years? Or 800 years? Where do we draw the line? How old does a country need to be to not offend the rest of the world in trying to keep their resources and infrastructure from being spread too thinly?
Yes you are correct, but there is a loss of meaning by being pedantic.
My comment would be meaningless to most people if instead of Africa I said a small region of Ethiopia, which probably wasn't even a country at that time, and probably a vastly different place due to continental shift.
The census says the native born population has been over 86% for well over a century, so (assuming commonplace xenophobia) most of us have no living ancestors who immigrated. And I think there has long been a perception that emigration is such a drastic step that most were either raised by a poorly-functioning society (which they are now fleeing) or not highly valued by their society (which basically got rid of them). Even the proverbial "poor, tired, huddled massses" weren't eagerly welcomed, and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native (and more willing to assimilate) than many immigrants today.
>and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native
You're speaking as if there were some completely objective and ahistorical measure of racial and cultural similarity. Many of these groups are considered to be racially and culturally similar to the "average native" today precisely _because_ they immigrated some time ago. Italians, for example, were not considered to be white even up to the mid 20th century.
There are degrees of it. Italians got the "slaves of the antichrist pope" and "don't let your kid marry one" hate, but not the "they don't have souls like human beings" or "they're secretly cannibals" hate.
I agree with the above poster. The US government must act in the best interest of their citizens and no one else. That means that they should give green cards and VISAs to people that will add value to the USA (scientists, college graduates).
But they should not allow the social problems of other countries in (i.e. the bottom of the pile). The lower echelons of 3rd world society are often drawn to immigrate to 1st world countries since they can earn a decent salary w.r.t their lack of qualifications and get free health care/social services.
> If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
Europe has extremely strict immigration policies. Japan is stricter than 99% of all other countries. Yet the world does not think poorly of those countries. Why would the USA be an exception?
I can't help thinking that you're conflating being poor with being socially problematic. Poorer and less educated immigrants often do the jobs that no one else wants in their new home and take opportunities that were denied them in their home countries. Just think of all the past generations of poor Chinese, Irish and Italians that were vilified for being poor - and how things have moved on since then.
I would take care with a statement like this. Because I used to believe it than found out it wasn't true. Case in point. I grew up in an area with high immigration and they did do the jobs that no one else wanted. And because I only saw immigrants (Carribean, South and Central American) doing these jobs, cutting grass for example, I assumed it must be true. So imagine my surprise when I went to a university in the appalachians and I saw white people cutting grass. I was shocked to see white people cut grass because 1) I never saw it happen before, 2) I was always told cutting grass was done by immigrants because no one else wanted the job.
So no, there is no such thing as a job no one wants. A job market works like the free market. If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it. Using cheap immigrant labour distorts the free market the same way buying knockoffs does.
A job no one wants is not a valid defense to support immigration.
> Using cheap immigrant labour distorts the free market
Are you seriously suggesting that the free movement of labor _distorts_ the free market? By, you know, putting employers in contact with the most competitive workers.
> If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it.
Or, equally likely, you can decide that the job is not worth doing for the higher price.
Can you name a single country that has a completely free labour market? You won't find a single one where the government hasn't erected a barrier of entry (visa requirements). The eurozone has probably the closest thing to a free labour market (they've extended the barriers to include most EC members). But if you are an American try getting a work permit in China, India, Mexico, the UK or Canada without having met the visa requirements first.
Yes I stand by my statement that immigration (especially the illegal kind) distorts the free market.
> the job is not worth doing for the higher price.
If the job is not worth doing then you have a decision to make don't you. I buy lots of things in a free market. Sometimes the price isn't worth it, a free market allows me to make that decision.
But we don't even have that kind of free market. I'm restricted to making most of my purchases in the country I reside. I could buy it cheaper in another country, but the government has erected another barrier (tariffs). Free markets should apply equally to everything, goods and labour. But at the moment they don't. I can't do the work cheaper than someone in Mexico because the price of goods are higher, the taxes are higher, and living costs are higher. I could compete in the Mexican market, but I'm not allowed to move there.
Most of what you're saying here (that existing markets are not 100% free) is obvious and uncontroversial, but does nothing to back up your claim that the free movement of labor "distorts" free markets.
>Can you name a single country that has a completely free labour market?
No, in large part because they all have restrictions on immigration.
>Yes I stand by my statement that immigration (especially the illegal kind) distorts the free market.
Maybe you should actually explain this statement instead of just standing by it. The term "free" in "free market" generally refers to the absence of external regulation, so it is odd to say that strict regulation of the labor market makes the market less free.
>If the job is not worth doing then you have a decision to make don't you. I buy lots of things in a free market. Sometimes the price isn't worth it, a free market allows me to make that decision.
Yes, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. Why are you copying it back to me?
Except for every immigrant that comes in taking a job, they also come with an indivisible consumer unit that makes other people jobs. Strangely almost always in an average $1:1 ratio.
This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of the working population during that time.
Exactly. It's because immigrants spend close to 100% of their money in the US, and any they send overseas either gets converted to a local currency (which brings the dollars back to the US since you can't usually spend them overseas), and the few countries that do use US dollars contribute to reversing inflation ;)
There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy.
And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.
> The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money.
Investment money isn't as good as money spent for goods. There is limited demand for loans and stocks without a corresponding rise in productivity.
Try making an economy where people don't spend anything and simply save. Or you can save yourself the trouble and see how well that worked out for Japan in the 90's.
> You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
Many illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants as a whole are paid less (very few are unique geniuses that are paid more), which means that they are actually netting less tax money than if a native was hired. They are also on a lower tax bracket so that is a double whammy.
I really don't see how anyone could be arguing otherwise unless they were trying to exploit H-1B labor themselves.
Don't forget about remittance. Lots of immigrants send a chunk of their income back home. Think of the ads, Can I send money to {[India, Mexico, ...]|random} and get free cell phone minutes?
Incidentally, the point is not that immigration prevented unemployment from rising to 66%, but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs.
Remittance doesn't help the US dollar. It hurts the US dollar. As foreign exchange banks need to make a profit, for every USD -> Rupee exchange, they are giving you less rupees for your dollar. Its just like buying gold. If a bunch of people start buying gold, the price will skyrocket against the currency you are buying it with.
" but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs."
Sorry but I don't believe that. More people does not necessarily equate more jobs. If you have a city that has food and water for 500 people, you are bound by that restriction. Adding another 500 people to it would not increase any jobs.
The idea of "taking jobs" reveals an extreme ignorance of the fundamentals of economics. People doing valuable work and earning appropriate compensation do nothing but help the economy, whether they were born in this country or not. The economy is not a zero sum game, when people contribute to the economy positively it's not "stealing".
You'd be correct if the simple assumptions of fundamental economics applied, but they don't:
Most immigrants are _not_ "people doing valuable work" - in fact, most are at hairdresser level or below. Few Nobels there - more likely B ship passengers in the Ark.
Most immigrants do not earn "appropriate compensation". Survey some H1-B slaves (among the highest paid immigrants) for their opinion.
It is quite simple: new immigrants take jobs from US citizens by working for less. Businesses that need workers like that; US citizens who want jobs do not.
The situation is obvious all around you. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it more complex than it is. Certainly cheap immigrant workers lower costs for business and "contributes positively to the economy", but don't try to cover over the fact that they push current workers out of jobs, causing dislocation and social upheaval. US citizens suffer, non-citizen immigrant workers benefit, business benefits. Which of those three groups cast ballots in an election? Is there supposed to be any benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit? You're effectively saying "No." and I disagree.
Which part of your argument cannot be used to argue against the use of machines instead of physical labor? The machines cost less, ergo they push current workers out of jobs, US citizens suffer, businesses benefit. Do you want to call the industrial revolution off?
Your statement is correct. Technology does cause the same problems as cheap labor.
But it doesn't change what I said. We're not talking about replacing men with machines, We're addressing the simple substitution of an inexpensive non-citizen for a more expensive citizen in a job. There apparently aren't machines available for these jobs so business seek out the cheapest human beings instead. If we didn't have our current political structure which attaches certain rights and privileges to citizenship then the USA would be like China where workers are treated like light bulbs.
Once machines can do everything a man can your argument will be pertinent. But remember that, should the time come that machines are the full equal of men, you may need to answer certain questions such as "Does this machine have civil rights or a vote in society?", "Can I trust this machine to do this job?", and "What sort of salary, if any, should I pay a machine for doing this job?". That is topic for another discussion and a real can of worms that I don't feel like opening right now.
Your elitism is astounding. Even minimum wage work is valuable work. Just because someone earns below the median wage doesn't mean they are valueless to the economy or to society.
You again seem to miss the simple fact that jobs do not fall out of the sky from some deity. The value of a job is in the work done, people doing work adds value to the economy for everyone. Even if people earn less than others for that work.
As to your question whether there is no benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit, that's tangential to the topic at hand. Whether a job is being done by a legal or illegal immigrant, or whether it's being done by automation that earns no wage at all it's ignorant, backwards, and harmful to label this as "stealing jobs".
When women entered the workforce they did not "steal" jobs from men, though many feared this, they contributed to the economy by doing work. The western world is now significantly richer per capita because of women in the workforce.
Immigrants "stealing" jobs, women "stealing" jobs, and automation "destroying" jobs are fundamentally responsible for the runaway generation of wealth in the US over its history.
Also, I'm not an economist but probably have studied it much more than the average person. Last time I checked I had a bookcase with 20+ economics books, most of which I've actually read. :)
My post was only half-serious but the half that was serious was referring mostly to the large influx of Hispanic, mostly Mexican, people. And yes, I do think that when they fill jobs in stores, restaurants, etc. and are willing to do them at wages less than a native citizen would otherwise do them at, it means it becomes harder for those citizens to find a job. It raises the supply of job hunters looking for other jobs, which puts downward pressure on market wages, across the board. It also increases the chance or frequency that those other folks (mostly teens or lower-income adults) will become more of a financial burden on our government and the rest of community, as well. Yes, the Hispanic/Mexican immigrant demographic does spend a portion of their income here in the US, clearly, but studies have shown that their average income level is fairly low, and thus their personal contribution to taxes relative to the benefits they consume is much worse than for a higher income worker. Plus, it's a fact that they send a larger portion of their pay out of the country, to Mexico or wherever. Again, unlike native/natural citizens.
To give a particular example, say there's a Mexican guy working in the US on a farm for at or below minimum wage, he lives in small cheap quarters with a lot of other workers, and sends the bulk of his pay back to his family in Mexico, and only stays part of the year, every year -- is that a net win for the US economy? Or a new family that's arrived and has 5 kids, they're in the public schools, they have to be taught in Spanish and English, stores and government offices all feel obligated to double-print everything because of their presence, and their income level is so low they qualify for lots of benefits and may even be a net tax beneficiary rather than a net tax payer -- is that a net win for the economy? Perhaps for that family's little micro-economy, but what about the larger community?
You're basically making a black/white assumption about what I was saying, and coming back with another black/white statement as your position. I do think it's subtle with shades of gray. If someone immigrates here and works at a restaurant, great. But what's the net effect on the government budget, and on the wages & prices experienced by those in the community? It may be a net lose rather than a net win.
In general, in the long term, immigration is vastly a net positive.
The waves of migration from Europe in the early 20th century brought with them their share of crime and poverty. There was even a jewish mafia, but I'll stake that right against Feynman any day.
In general, technology and education are the best contributions to productivity growth, which in turn is the best proxy we currently have to good living ("happiness economics" is a growing field that aims to produce a better proxy). These immigrants are making life better for everyone.
Full disclosure: I have immigrated twice, about to get my US citizenship (passed the test, need to be sworn in). Probably not gonna win a nobel prize, but as an entrepreneur hope to be creating jobs.
It always surprises me that people talk about "immigration" as if it's a binary field, either on or off. To me, it's all about degree. There's an ideal level of immigration - go too high over it, and it leads to overcrowding, social upheaval, displacement. Go too low, and a society stagnates.
It's not just about numbers, of course, it's also about the type of immigrant. While it may be politically incorrect to say so, migrant farm workers who send most of their earnings home may very well result in a net loss, whereas highly educated workers result in a net gain.
The issue is so intense in the US that I think it's productive to ask how you'd design an immigration system for a smaller country with lower population density. Right now, New Zealand has a population of about 4 mil and a land mass only a bit smaller than California.
Would New Zealanders be better off if fifty million immigrants came into the country over the next 20 years? If not, how many immigrants would you consider to be ideal? It's not all about GDP - it's a beautiful country, essentially a giant national park, and that would be lost if they allowed mass immigration.
If there was only a 100 science PhDs granted each year in th eUSA then they would be able to demand a high salary as industry fought for their services.
This would in no way reduce the innovation of industry of force them to move their R+D overseas.
"But that openness stands in sharp contrast to arcane U.S. immigration policies that discourage young scholars from settling in the U.S."
I am an immigrant. Whether I am a "scientist" is debatable but the above statement is disingenuous. I think, sometimes people mix-up the highly talented pool of immigrant with IT works... I am yet to see Ph.Ds refused visas and what not (not to say one need a Ph.D. to do something useful).
That's a recent change - it used to be very difficult to get academic staff into the US, even for international research programs.
It's why a lot of international scientific projects aren't head quartered in the US anymore.
When our policy makers think about PhD's in the sciences, they form their opinion by talking to the dean of MIT and/or nobel prize winners. They don't see how underpaid and disappointing many of these careers really are, or that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States."
It's not just greenspun, of course. CNN listed "Research Scientist" as one of the "Big Jobs with Low Pay." A RAND institute study recently concluded that the low interest of US students in math/science research was the result of uncompetitive pay and work conditions.
I do think that the US should make an effort to retain top talent in these fields, but I have trouble taking an editorial seriously if it completely fails to acknowledge how uncompetitive research science careers have become with law, medicine, mba, and other paths available to very smart people.
Loosening out immigration laws for these folks and allowing the percentage of foreign nationals in our PhD programs to rise even higher (and it's already very high) will allow the US to fill some science positions without addressing this discrepancy for a while longer... but not forever.
Someday, maybe I'll get to read an editorial by an MIT dean that acknowledges how unattractive PhDs in science have become for Americans, and what to do about it that doesn't amount to "more visas for foreigners."
42 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 88.5 ms ] threadIt's crazy to drive away talented young scholars.
Presumably, an equivalent headline would be,
It's crazy to invite illiterate crime-prone peasants.
Yet, no major newspaper has that vastly more pertinent op-ed. I wonder why. (Ironic sigh......) I wonder if there's an overarching, unstated purpose to such mendacity.
The US is a county of immigrants. The US is only 300 years old and it's hugely amusing to see US citizens talk poorly about the countries of their parents, grand parents, and great grandparents.
If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants.
There comes a point where it is prudent for the current residents to limit hordes of competitors pouring in to take the resources and infrastructure built within the past hundreds of years when their ancestors cozily stayed in their home countries while pioneers busted their nuts off as indentured servants or lived in isolation without "modern" infrastructure.
Are you arguing that 300 years is too new? How about 400 years? Or 800 years? Where do we draw the line? How old does a country need to be to not offend the rest of the world in trying to keep their resources and infrastructure from being spread too thinly?
Africa is not a country.
My comment would be meaningless to most people if instead of Africa I said a small region of Ethiopia, which probably wasn't even a country at that time, and probably a vastly different place due to continental shift.
You're speaking as if there were some completely objective and ahistorical measure of racial and cultural similarity. Many of these groups are considered to be racially and culturally similar to the "average native" today precisely _because_ they immigrated some time ago. Italians, for example, were not considered to be white even up to the mid 20th century.
But they should not allow the social problems of other countries in (i.e. the bottom of the pile). The lower echelons of 3rd world society are often drawn to immigrate to 1st world countries since they can earn a decent salary w.r.t their lack of qualifications and get free health care/social services.
> If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
Europe has extremely strict immigration policies. Japan is stricter than 99% of all other countries. Yet the world does not think poorly of those countries. Why would the USA be an exception?
So no, there is no such thing as a job no one wants. A job market works like the free market. If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it. Using cheap immigrant labour distorts the free market the same way buying knockoffs does.
A job no one wants is not a valid defense to support immigration.
Are you seriously suggesting that the free movement of labor _distorts_ the free market? By, you know, putting employers in contact with the most competitive workers.
> If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it.
Or, equally likely, you can decide that the job is not worth doing for the higher price.
Yes I stand by my statement that immigration (especially the illegal kind) distorts the free market.
> the job is not worth doing for the higher price. If the job is not worth doing then you have a decision to make don't you. I buy lots of things in a free market. Sometimes the price isn't worth it, a free market allows me to make that decision.
But we don't even have that kind of free market. I'm restricted to making most of my purchases in the country I reside. I could buy it cheaper in another country, but the government has erected another barrier (tariffs). Free markets should apply equally to everything, goods and labour. But at the moment they don't. I can't do the work cheaper than someone in Mexico because the price of goods are higher, the taxes are higher, and living costs are higher. I could compete in the Mexican market, but I'm not allowed to move there.
>Can you name a single country that has a completely free labour market?
No, in large part because they all have restrictions on immigration.
>Yes I stand by my statement that immigration (especially the illegal kind) distorts the free market.
Maybe you should actually explain this statement instead of just standing by it. The term "free" in "free market" generally refers to the absence of external regulation, so it is odd to say that strict regulation of the labor market makes the market less free.
>If the job is not worth doing then you have a decision to make don't you. I buy lots of things in a free market. Sometimes the price isn't worth it, a free market allows me to make that decision.
Yes, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. Why are you copying it back to me?
"Europe" does not have an immigration policy. And not all countries within Europe are particularly strict.
This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of the working population during that time.
There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy.
And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.
The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money.
You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
Investment money isn't as good as money spent for goods. There is limited demand for loans and stocks without a corresponding rise in productivity.
Try making an economy where people don't spend anything and simply save. Or you can save yourself the trouble and see how well that worked out for Japan in the 90's.
> You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
Many illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants as a whole are paid less (very few are unique geniuses that are paid more), which means that they are actually netting less tax money than if a native was hired. They are also on a lower tax bracket so that is a double whammy.
I really don't see how anyone could be arguing otherwise unless they were trying to exploit H-1B labor themselves.
Incidentally, the point is not that immigration prevented unemployment from rising to 66%, but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs.
Remittance doesn't help the US dollar. It hurts the US dollar. As foreign exchange banks need to make a profit, for every USD -> Rupee exchange, they are giving you less rupees for your dollar. Its just like buying gold. If a bunch of people start buying gold, the price will skyrocket against the currency you are buying it with.
" but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs."
Sorry but I don't believe that. More people does not necessarily equate more jobs. If you have a city that has food and water for 500 people, you are bound by that restriction. Adding another 500 people to it would not increase any jobs.
Sadly, the HTML title for the page omits that key qualifier. It should be in the post here, as well, though.
Most immigrants are _not_ "people doing valuable work" - in fact, most are at hairdresser level or below. Few Nobels there - more likely B ship passengers in the Ark.
Most immigrants do not earn "appropriate compensation". Survey some H1-B slaves (among the highest paid immigrants) for their opinion.
It is quite simple: new immigrants take jobs from US citizens by working for less. Businesses that need workers like that; US citizens who want jobs do not.
The situation is obvious all around you. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it more complex than it is. Certainly cheap immigrant workers lower costs for business and "contributes positively to the economy", but don't try to cover over the fact that they push current workers out of jobs, causing dislocation and social upheaval. US citizens suffer, non-citizen immigrant workers benefit, business benefits. Which of those three groups cast ballots in an election? Is there supposed to be any benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit? You're effectively saying "No." and I disagree.
But it doesn't change what I said. We're not talking about replacing men with machines, We're addressing the simple substitution of an inexpensive non-citizen for a more expensive citizen in a job. There apparently aren't machines available for these jobs so business seek out the cheapest human beings instead. If we didn't have our current political structure which attaches certain rights and privileges to citizenship then the USA would be like China where workers are treated like light bulbs.
Once machines can do everything a man can your argument will be pertinent. But remember that, should the time come that machines are the full equal of men, you may need to answer certain questions such as "Does this machine have civil rights or a vote in society?", "Can I trust this machine to do this job?", and "What sort of salary, if any, should I pay a machine for doing this job?". That is topic for another discussion and a real can of worms that I don't feel like opening right now.
You again seem to miss the simple fact that jobs do not fall out of the sky from some deity. The value of a job is in the work done, people doing work adds value to the economy for everyone. Even if people earn less than others for that work.
As to your question whether there is no benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit, that's tangential to the topic at hand. Whether a job is being done by a legal or illegal immigrant, or whether it's being done by automation that earns no wage at all it's ignorant, backwards, and harmful to label this as "stealing jobs".
When women entered the workforce they did not "steal" jobs from men, though many feared this, they contributed to the economy by doing work. The western world is now significantly richer per capita because of women in the workforce.
Immigrants "stealing" jobs, women "stealing" jobs, and automation "destroying" jobs are fundamentally responsible for the runaway generation of wealth in the US over its history.
Also, I'm not an economist but probably have studied it much more than the average person. Last time I checked I had a bookcase with 20+ economics books, most of which I've actually read. :)
My post was only half-serious but the half that was serious was referring mostly to the large influx of Hispanic, mostly Mexican, people. And yes, I do think that when they fill jobs in stores, restaurants, etc. and are willing to do them at wages less than a native citizen would otherwise do them at, it means it becomes harder for those citizens to find a job. It raises the supply of job hunters looking for other jobs, which puts downward pressure on market wages, across the board. It also increases the chance or frequency that those other folks (mostly teens or lower-income adults) will become more of a financial burden on our government and the rest of community, as well. Yes, the Hispanic/Mexican immigrant demographic does spend a portion of their income here in the US, clearly, but studies have shown that their average income level is fairly low, and thus their personal contribution to taxes relative to the benefits they consume is much worse than for a higher income worker. Plus, it's a fact that they send a larger portion of their pay out of the country, to Mexico or wherever. Again, unlike native/natural citizens.
To give a particular example, say there's a Mexican guy working in the US on a farm for at or below minimum wage, he lives in small cheap quarters with a lot of other workers, and sends the bulk of his pay back to his family in Mexico, and only stays part of the year, every year -- is that a net win for the US economy? Or a new family that's arrived and has 5 kids, they're in the public schools, they have to be taught in Spanish and English, stores and government offices all feel obligated to double-print everything because of their presence, and their income level is so low they qualify for lots of benefits and may even be a net tax beneficiary rather than a net tax payer -- is that a net win for the economy? Perhaps for that family's little micro-economy, but what about the larger community?
You're basically making a black/white assumption about what I was saying, and coming back with another black/white statement as your position. I do think it's subtle with shades of gray. If someone immigrates here and works at a restaurant, great. But what's the net effect on the government budget, and on the wages & prices experienced by those in the community? It may be a net lose rather than a net win.
The waves of migration from Europe in the early 20th century brought with them their share of crime and poverty. There was even a jewish mafia, but I'll stake that right against Feynman any day.
In general, technology and education are the best contributions to productivity growth, which in turn is the best proxy we currently have to good living ("happiness economics" is a growing field that aims to produce a better proxy). These immigrants are making life better for everyone.
Full disclosure: I have immigrated twice, about to get my US citizenship (passed the test, need to be sworn in). Probably not gonna win a nobel prize, but as an entrepreneur hope to be creating jobs.
It's not just about numbers, of course, it's also about the type of immigrant. While it may be politically incorrect to say so, migrant farm workers who send most of their earnings home may very well result in a net loss, whereas highly educated workers result in a net gain.
The issue is so intense in the US that I think it's productive to ask how you'd design an immigration system for a smaller country with lower population density. Right now, New Zealand has a population of about 4 mil and a land mass only a bit smaller than California.
Would New Zealanders be better off if fifty million immigrants came into the country over the next 20 years? If not, how many immigrants would you consider to be ideal? It's not all about GDP - it's a beautiful country, essentially a giant national park, and that would be lost if they allowed mass immigration.
http://www.businessweek.com/print/smallbiz/content/oct2007/s...
(I think the actual problem is that we overproduce low quality PhD scientists, but the assumption that we have a shortage isn't right.)
If there was only a 100 science PhDs granted each year in th eUSA then they would be able to demand a high salary as industry fought for their services. This would in no way reduce the innovation of industry of force them to move their R+D overseas.
No wonder they call economics the dismal science
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
When our policy makers think about PhD's in the sciences, they form their opinion by talking to the dean of MIT and/or nobel prize winners. They don't see how underpaid and disappointing many of these careers really are, or that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States."
It's not just greenspun, of course. CNN listed "Research Scientist" as one of the "Big Jobs with Low Pay." A RAND institute study recently concluded that the low interest of US students in math/science research was the result of uncompetitive pay and work conditions.
I do think that the US should make an effort to retain top talent in these fields, but I have trouble taking an editorial seriously if it completely fails to acknowledge how uncompetitive research science careers have become with law, medicine, mba, and other paths available to very smart people.
Loosening out immigration laws for these folks and allowing the percentage of foreign nationals in our PhD programs to rise even higher (and it's already very high) will allow the US to fill some science positions without addressing this discrepancy for a while longer... but not forever.
Someday, maybe I'll get to read an editorial by an MIT dean that acknowledges how unattractive PhDs in science have become for Americans, and what to do about it that doesn't amount to "more visas for foreigners."