Today, I am an Indian

[KrazyHorse]

And another thought: Don't you if you employ robots and your own potential-engineer population is better of get a greater demand for foreign immigrant engineers, which are more likely to have a higher IQ.

come on, dude. Now you're justifying holding down the poor in order to attract high-skill foreigners? I thought you were concerned about the effects of immigration on low-skill natives...

[Heraclitus]

I just wish to comment this bit. It raises the prices for engineers with that specific skill set, doesn't that also mean more people will go for engineering jobs? Sure the people doing low income jobs probably on average don't have what it takes to be engineers but still.

That's what I said: over time, people who would have become biophysicists become magic mexican-replacing robot engineers. But the movement is generally from one fairly high-skilled path to another. It's not "either become a fry clerk or an engineer".

But it does create a stronger pull for high skilled people that does draw some otherwise slightly less skilled people into hight skilled people jobs. And the pull goes all the way down to fry clerk.

The question is how many people who are competent to be preforming more demanding jobs would be moved by increased financial incentives. If too few then, we just suffer more incompetence which makes Mexican immigrants the better option.

[KrazyHorse]

I haven't read the Borjas paper, but I worry about its attempt to do analysis on the secular trends in black employment. The problem is that they study black employment over a time period in which blacks became much more politically aware, rebelled against their place in society, were subjected to the devastating effects of a drug epidemic (which also hit the broader community, but much less severely) and were then hit by a crackdown on criminality in the 90s.

Unless they attempt to disaggregate by region and use this data to draw conclusions on relative movements, I'd be worried.

[Heraclitus]

And another thought: Don't you if you employ robots and your own potential-engineer population is better of get a greater demand for foreign immigrant engineers, which are more likely to have a higher IQ.

come on, dude. Now you're justifying holding down the poor in order to attract high-skill foreigners? I thought you were concerned about the effects of immigration on low-skill natives...

I'm not "concerned" about any of this. I just commented on low-skill natives reactions are probably less motivated by xenophobia than what they perceive as their economic interest.

(my "concerns" follow):
I do admit that I think that the state as a whole is better off limiting immigration to prevent overpopulation. The US, Canada or Slovenia however are in no danger esp. ... comparing its pop density to perfectly reasonable places to live with comparable climates like Germany or maybe South Korea. However I would argue against excessive immigration to Slovenia and Eastern Euro states for other reasons if one wishes to respect the will of the people (Western Europeans have since the days they started building Empires and esp after they lost them after WW2 moved away from Nation States while many Ex-Yugo populations supported independence on the various referendums for independence because they wanted a Nation State and effective assimilation is especially critical for creating or maintaining this).

Edit: Hm if only making a population smarter was a simple matter of keeping the poor people down...

[KrazyHorse]

But it does create a stronger pull for high skilled people that does draw some otherwise slightly less skilled people into hight skilled people jobs. And the pull goes all the way down to fry clerk.

Holy **** dude, yes, of course. But this type of convoluted mechanism is never going to give you as much benefit to the poor as to the rich. To claim otherwise is to engage in the sort of fairy-tale that the most retarded supply-siders do.

Over time technical progress tends to help everybody. It gives you the ability to build more with less. But the same is true of Mexicans, and there's good reason to believe that it's easier for poor people to make money selling **** to Mexicans than it is for poor people to make money from becoming robot engineers.

[KrazyHorse]

I just commented on low-skill natives reactions are probably less motivated by xenophobia than what they perceive as their economic interest.

There's a number of components to anti-immigrantism (or whatever):

1) Simple economic ignorance. "They took our jobs" generally falls in this category. The number of jobs isn't fixed any more than the number of cars or movies is.

2) Less ignorant economic reactions: this is what we're talking about. Still unclear why technical progress is seen as good while immigration is seen as bad.

3) Xenophobia

4) Legitimate concerns about the effects of a large influx of poor people into a community

[KrazyHorse]

To put it simply:

Automation generally takes high-skill inputs and outputs low-skill labour
Low-skill immigration takes a mix of high- and low-skill inputs (more low- than high-) and outputs low-skill labour
High-skill immigration takes a mix of high- and low-skill inputs (more high- than low-) and outputs high-skill labour

Of the three, automation is the most obviously bad for the poor. Low-skill immigration is a mix of good and bad. High-skill immigration is good for the poor, and a mix of good and bad for the rich. All increase the productivity of native workers as a whole.

[Heraclitus]

I'm not aware of any serious economist who's against high-skill immigration, by the way. In general, IIUC most economists think that low-skill immigration may or may not adversely impact the poor (at least in the short run), but they also know that low-skill immigration increases general welfare (measured in real national income, say),

If this is shown empirically true my talk in (crazy) part is just that.

I'm not aware of any serious economist who's against high-skill immigration, by the way. In general, IIUC most economists think that low-skill immigration may or may not adversely impact the poor (at least in the short run), but they also know that low-skill immigration increases general welfare (measured in real national income, say), even if it is bad for inequality (and may thus be bad for general welfare measured in some more inclusive fashion)

The point is that the arguments against immigration (even unskilled immigration) actually apply MORE STRONGLY to technical progress in manufacturing, farming etc. Yet you don't see people railing against technical progress. The non-economically illiterate response is to claim that there are negative consequences from immigration which go beyond the labour market. Some of these are based on false impressions or prejudice (criminality outside of illegal immigration itself is, as far as it's possible to tell, lower amongst immigrants than amongst the equivalent native population, generally younger males). Some are based on anger at the fact that it's illegal immigration (fair enough). Some are based on costs to local and state governments (again, fair enough). Some claim a loss of American identity (or something which does verge on the xenophobic, along with ignorant of American history).

A few comments:

Wouldn't the problems for local and state goverments incurr costs while the entire US benefits be solved by a proper level of additional Federal funding?

The loss of American identity is not quite consistent, considering the US population today would be much lower without immigrants after the revolution (though not as lower as a naive look at the ethnic origin statistics of the US might suggest). And the fact that Americans are proud to have a nation based on an ideal or should I say idea.

As to criminality, you can't dismiss their claim outright, considering the second and third generations descendent of Mexican immigrants do have a much higher crime rate.

[Ben Kenobi]

KH, do the folks at Goldman take population dynamics into account?

[Heraclitus]

But it does create a stronger pull for high skilled people that does draw some otherwise slightly less skilled people into hight skilled people jobs. And the pull goes all the way down to fry clerk.

Holy **** dude, yes, of course. But this type of convoluted mechanism is never going to give you as much benefit to the poor as to the rich. To claim otherwise is to engage in the sort of fairy-tale that the most retarded supply-siders do.

Over time technical progress tends to help everybody. It gives you the ability to build more with less. But the same is true of Mexicans, and there's good reason to believe that it's easier for poor people to make money selling **** to Mexicans than it is for poor people to make money from becoming robot engineers.

Again, I don't care about the lower class. I was talking about total wealth creation (I'm butchering terminology here I know, please excuse my ignorance, perhaps GDP captures my meaning).

To put it simply:

Automation generally takes high-skill inputs and outputs low-skill labour
Low-skill immigration takes a mix of high- and low-skill inputs (more low- than high-) and outputs low-skill labour
High-skill immigration takes a mix of high- and low-skill inputs (more high- than low-) and outputs high-skill labour

Of the three, automation is the most obviously bad for the poor. Low-skill immigration is a mix of good and bad. High-skill immigration is good for the poor, and a mix of good and bad for the rich.

All increase the productivity of native workers as a whole.

I was basically going on a hunch that productivity of native workers as a whole (esp if you consider the cost of automating various tasks to be going down and not stopping soon) or at least a lower suckiness of living go with the automation more than with low-skill immigration.

[KrazyHorse]

If this is shown empirically true

This part DOESN'T NEED TO BE SHOWN TO BE EMPIRICALLY TRUE. THIS IS THE PART THAT IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE FROM THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

(for the same reasons that trade is obviously beneficial to both parties)

[Heraclitus]

If this is shown empirically true

This part DOESN'T NEED TO BE SHOWN TO BE EMPIRICALLY TRUE. THIS IS THE PART THAT IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE FROM THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

(for the same reasons that trade is obviously beneficial to both parties)

I think I misunderstood real national income, or how you used welfare.


So the poor people always benefit enough from immigration, despite that fact that the country has more "poor" citizens, that the average income of the citizen rises?

[Heraclitus]

2) Less ignorant economic reactions: this is what we're talking about. Still unclear why technical progress is seen as good while immigration is seen as bad.

Technical progress seems to be trending towards a more sustainable society but is offset by rapidly growing populations, the biggest problem is the increase of people living on a developed standard, which happens in 2 ways:

1. Development of underdeveloped countries
2. Immigration to developed countries

I don't need to point out that development of underdeveloped countries is preferable. Unless offcourse the immigration to developed countries is paced at such a rate the the underdeveloped countries actually develop faster (instead of providing a greater quantity of government services , they lets say slap on a tax break for businesses or perhaps improve the quality of government services) thus pushing them through the demographic transition quicker.




Outsourcing is the better option for the world as a whole, unless the hidden costs of global transportation are much higher than one would first believe.

[KrazyHorse]

???

What I said has nothing to do with medians. It has to do with means. The mean real income among native citizens is increased by immigration, just like it's increased by trade or by technological progress. The median can be shifted downward.

[KrazyHorse]

???

What I said has nothing to do with medians. It has to do with means. The mean real income among native citizens is increased by immigration, just like it's increased by trade or by technological progress. The median can be shifted downward.