Harvard Economist: Immigration Redistributes Half Trillion Dollars From American Workers to Employers of Immigrants Each Year
Immigration is another form of wealth redistribution, according to Harvard University economist George Borjas.
Instead of government’s traditional approach to funnel money to lower income households, however, immigration causes wealth to be redistributed from the existing workforce — residents competing with new immigrants — to employers that hire those new immigrants, Borjas argued Wednesday before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
“If we look at the impact of immigration over the last few decades in the U.S., one rough rule of thumb that comes out is that when you increase supply of workers in a particular group by around 10 percent, the wage of that group will go down by three percent, which is not a trivial number but it’s not a huge number either,” he said.
According to Borjas, that impact transcends cities and skill groups over the past fifty years.
“The fact is that the groups that receive the most immigrants will tend to do slightly worse off after that by around three percent for every ten percent increase in supply,” he said.
The Harvard economist explained that the net gain annually from this trend is about $50 billion.
“And one of the lessons from that model that’s actually very difficult to manipulate the model in a way that would make that number much bigger,” he said. “So, we have a fifty billion dollar gain on net that accrues to natives and a huge redistribution [of wealth] from the people who compete with immigrants, to the people who use immigrants of around half a trillion dollars a year. And that’s what the laws of supply and demand tend to imply."
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism.[10]
I'd call my position similar to that of Pat Buchanan.
As you may have heard in my last campaign, I am called by many names. “Protectionist” is one of the nicer ones; but it is inexact. I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man – and not the other way around.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
What he's basically saying is that immigrants work hard and make $500 billion/year. If Americans would do a better job of competing and stop being such lazy asses like ldsfaqs and ajax, this wouldn't happen. We've already established that there are some jobs Americans simply won't do. So calling it "redistribution" when immigrants take those jobs available to them is a mighty stretch. But Borjas didn't use that word, it is something Brietbart just made up to make it sound like he agreed with their xenophobic approach, as if they're taking something that rightfully belongs to Americans who haven't earned it yet.
We've already established that there are some jobs Americans simply won't do.
You left out a key part of that fact.
We've already established that there are some jobs Americans simply won't do at the price employers prefer to pay.
Beyond that, it is true that there are lazy Americans who have been enabled to be such by the welfare state your party created.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Americans will not pick lettuce in Yuma Arizona for twice the minimum wage. What you don't get is that the cheap later translates to more money in the economy, particularly for consumers. More money for ALL of us, including all those workers you think are being unfairly neglected. In your fantasy world all immigrants will be gone and farmers will be forced to pay Americans $20+/hr to pick lettuce and hotels will be forced to pay American cleaning ladies $60k/year with benefits. So what does that mean for the rest of us? It means $10 salads and $100/night at the Best Western. See the problem?
Calling this wealth "redistribution" would be just as stupid as it is when Brietfart says it.
The only party responsible for the welfare state is yours. Just check out which states mooch off the country the most. They're primarily red states. Loser rednecks like you and faqs who sit around bitching about people with different skin tones, acting like you really give a damn if some other Americans get a job or not. You're just using this as a cover for your racism.
Last edited by YahooSeeker [Bot] on Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Americans will not pick lettuce in Yuma Arizona for twice the minimum wage. What you don't get is that the cheap later translates to more money in the economy, particularly for consumers. More money for ALL of us, including all those workers you think are being unfairly neglected. In your fantasy world all immigrants will be gone and farmers will be forced to pay Americans $20+/hr to pick lettuce and hotels will be forced to pay American cleaning ladies $60k/year with benefits. So what does that mean for the rest of us? It means $10 salads and $100/night at the Best Western. See the problem?
This sounds like the same argument against trade protectionism, which you and I seem to agree on.
I'm sure slave labor added money to the economy as well. Look how well that has worked out in the long run.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
The CCC wrote:Actually slavery took money out of the economy.
So slavery took money out of the economy but cheap labor adds money to the economy. Sounds like some very interesting accounting.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Kevin Graham wrote:If Americans would do a better job of competing and stop being such lazy asses like ldsfaqs and ajax, this wouldn't happen.
This is the subtext of Carly Fiorina's 'Right-Shoring' days at Hewlett-Packard. The only difference is the foreign competition is on American soil rather than overseas.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land