Commenter Spencer says:
This is the biggest problem I have with libertarians. Why you always seem to think you improve standards of living with cheap labor is beyond me.If the relative price of something is cheap you will use more of it. Consequently if you keep the price of labor low through immigration you encourage labor intensive production process. This does not raise living standards. If you want to raise living standards you want to shift the production process towards a more capital intensive process where the additional capital per worker allows them to be more productive and raise living standards.
That would seem to make closing the borders a win: Americans get higher wages and more automation. But it assumes that the immigrants themselves have absolutely no moral standing. Their lives aren't made better by the fact that America has automatic fruit picking machines.
That a given individual benefits from being offered (or taking) the chance to immigrate is a given. Any new discussion is presumed to deal with the costs and benefits for current residents and the country as a whole.
Megan, whom you have in mind when you say "immigrants"?
Those that deserve the term are the people who immigrated into the country legally; if the quotes for entry are lowered, these people, or a certain percent of them working at the "fruit picking machines" (which in itself begs various questions; but I'll put it aside for a moment) will have their living standards raised - compared to the standards they would have if they were picking the fruit by hand and in bigger company of fellow workers.
Those that are in the country illegally are not immigrants, they are tresspassers. Who cares about criminals' living standards? To be eligible for your concern as a legal citizen, they should behave within requirements of same legal system as legal citizens comply with.
"Moral standing" only applies to people who subscribe to morality of the country they're trying to immigrate to.
Beside
"But it assumes that the immigrants themselves have absolutely no moral standing. Their lives aren't made better by the fact that America has automatic fruit picking machines."
I don't think this assumes any such thing. For that to be true you have to yourself assume that the American economy should rank, not just among but above these other concerns, the lives of those people that come from another country.
Why can't the US economy first and foremost deal with US problems, without those advocating for US citizens being accused of not giving a crap about the lives of foreigners. We have enough internal problems of our own to solve.
So I guess you are agreeing with the basic point that cheap labor tends to keep living standards from rising.
The argument is that allowing unlimited immigration keeps american living standards from rising as much as they other would.
My argument is not pro or anti-immigrant. It is simply that you should realize that there is a major cost to the policy. Your post about it allowing women to work ignored this point.
Great question Megan.
When I was younger and lived in El Paso an old friend of mine visited town. He was a staunch conservative and very opposed to illegal immigration.
I took him up on the mountain in central El Paso and asked him where we should draw the line between those that have a birth right to a high standard of living and those that don't.
It finally dawned on him that the only difference between "them" and us was an artificial line drawn between the U.S. and Mexico, and only by the grace of God were we born on the north side of that line.
Likewise, the rest of the world. They deserve the blessings of liberty and prosperity as much as any of "us" do. How did the song go- "We are the World"
Picking fruit may be the immigrants' first best solution, but what's their second or eighth?
In a world with finite resources and infinite desires, there will always be work. If fruit picking gets capitalized, then the fruit pickers will still be employed, though in a different vocation - but they too will receive benefit from fruit picking machines.
The above comment was poor.
What I was really thinking about was the basic point that every libertarians argument is that increasing the return to capital is good but increasing the returns to labor is bad. Immigration is just one example.
I challenge you to show a single example of a libertarian economist economist agreeing that something that increases the returns to labor is good.
Economic history shows that one of the major reasons we are the wealthiest country in the world
is that through most of our history labor has been expensive. Ir has caused our system to become more capital intensive and this is the major factor generating rising standards of living.
How many billions of "immigrants", I think Megan is using the word to mean - people who want to immigrate to the US, have a moral right to immigrate to the US?
Their lives aren't made better by the fact that America has automatic fruit picking machines.
Yep, no poor person in a poor country has ever benefited from a labor saving device developed in an advanced country.
It should go without saying that McArdle is presenting a false choice between completely closing the borders and flooding the labor market with cheap labor. It should also go without saying that there are billions of people who are worse off than Mexicans, and we can't let all of them in, and that's why we have immigration laws. It should also go without saying that allowing massive illegal immigration from Mexico makes Mexico's situation worse than it would be if we put pressure on them to reform.
And, it's sad that I have to point that out.
Tom Kelly said:
Likewise, the rest of the world. They deserve the blessings of liberty and prosperity as much as any of "us" do. How did the song go- "We are the World"
That is probably the loveliest stupid statement I have ever heard. The mere quoting of one of the worst songs in history only releases everyone from having to attack your position on its merits.
The world no more deserves American liberty than I deserve your paycheck or the food in your fridge (by virtue of having less than you, or being born in, say, Compton). How many cold and hungry and poor are you taking into that locked front door of yours. Yea, nada. But they look really cute from the atop candyland mountain.
Illegal immigrants (criminals) do not have any moral standing when it comes to making decisions about US law enforcement, border enforcement, security, etc... We (citizens of the US) should be able to make decisions on who we want to let in to this country. It is our country and it should be our decision. If we are able to successfully secure the borders (at least to a greater degree than they are "secure" now), then we might decide to let more legal immigrants in.
Also, historically, automation has generally increased the number of jobs available, though not the same jobs. In the long run, automated farm machines would be a win-win for everyone. The displaced always suffer when technology changes. But you can't progress without change...
EI
Finn and fellow nativists:
I guess "All men are created equal..." is not an American value to you anymore.
Liberty can be given to others without taking it away from those that already have it.
We all gain when others gain liberty. Our productivity goes up as others become more productive.
Each of us has two hands and only one mouth, no matter where we happened to be born.
EI
what is the difference between the two polar choices: completely closing the borders and flooding the labor market with cheap labor?
To start with - you cannot close the border (it is being tried right now - just as the end of suicide bombings in Iraq and Palestine...)! You can choose who you employ but that is another issue?
You could flood the market however... what would happen?
We cannot - it would be literally impossible - solve the problems of everyone on Earth. I am not in favor of entirely closed borders, but our nation has to give the problems of its own citizens first priority. The problems of Mexicans should be the priority of Mexico, and the problems of the several dozen nations whose standards of living are lower than Mexico's should be the priorities of those nations. This post is not intellectually or morally serious; it's just posturing.
One needs to ask the question about where capital comes from before advocating capital investment as a way to raise living standards. Some of the suggestions I read on this and other blogs demonstrate a clear misunderstanding the underlying process of capital formation and accumulation. I mean, exactly why did we go through the agony of labor intensive production for thousands of years before we decided to automate a lot of the process.
Aside from that, there is a real debate here- how open should the US borders be? Megan is asking the right questions, and the rights of foreigners do have to be balanced with the rights of Americans already here. This is a tough question from a libertarian perspective in a non-libertarian world.
Tom Kelly-
I guess "All men are created equal..." is not an American value to you anymore.
Can an "illegal immigrant" be elected to any Federal Office?
It seems quite clear what "American Values" were 220 years ago...
Fun meta question: why do people like McArdle, MattY, Kevin Drum*, MarcCooper, and Ezra Klein keep posting entries like this, only to be shown up by commenters? Don't they know that's going to happen and it's not going to make them look good? What would happen if they just admitted that they've been wrong and moved on?
* Drum deletes comments he finds "annoying", so take anything you read there with a grain of salt.
Last time I checked, locality of control was a good thing. Let US policy optimize utility for US citizens, and Mexican policy do so for Mexican citizens, etc. If we want to improve the welfare of Mexicans (which I think is a worthwhile goal), we should compel the corrupt Mexican government to reform.
What has helped the Chinese people more: the immigration of a few million of them to the US, or Deng Xiaoping's reforms? And, to the degree that immigration did help, what sort of immigration mattered more, low-skill labor, or high-tech entrepreneurs who jump started industries back home?
If we can do just fine helping the Chinese people without compromising our self-interest, why are Mexicans any different?
I never said that we should CLOSE the border. I said that we should secure the border as best we can and attempt to control who comes into our country. I believe in immigration and I am happy to let many immigrants into this country for many reasons. But I, as a US citizen, believe that US citizens, through our elected government, should have the right to CONTROL who comes in.
IMO, part of securing the border is more robust enforcement of existing immigration laws.
EI
"Economic history shows that one of the major reasons we are the wealthiest country in the world
is that through most of our history labor has been expensive. Ir has caused our system to become more capital intensive and this is the major factor generating rising standards of living."
so true, so true, even back in ol' Ben F's time. High wages, by econ 101, force people to substitute brains for brawn. In the long run, this is very good for people, not just economies.
I agree with the previous post. The U.S. has been the wealthiest country in the world due to the expensive labor. Ultimately, as we hire employees for more expensive labor payments, then the standards of living will also increase.
Thus, I believe that the border should be more tightly controlled in order block away many immigrants who will decrease our standards of living by acquiring jobs that pay a low salary.
James Kabala said: "This post is not intellectually or morally serious; it's just posturing."
I think this is the first thing in this conversation that I agree with. Reading the debate, I feel like I'm watching the bar regulars in a Dortmunder book. The breadth and depth of logic flaws is simply staggering.
First of all, expensive labor is not a precursor to a wealthy state ... it is a consequence of a wealthy state. And where on earth did you get the idea that "through most of our history labor has been expensive?" Hello?? Did you forget about the 70+ years of slavery? How about the traditionally low wages of servers in restaurants? If you're going to make outrageous claims, at least provide some semblance of a citation.
Secondly, the Libertarian perspective is not based on "returns to labor" or "returns to capital." The Libertarian perspective emphasizes - across the board - more freedoms to the individual and less control from the government. In economic terms, that means fewer artificial pressures in the marketplace. The minimum wage is an artificial pressure. Immigration control is also an artificial pressure. (Notice that both of these examples would result in higher base wages.)
Libertarians would say that individuals make better decisions, in the aggregate, than any government entity can, whether it means to hire an immigrant or set wages based on the free market. Therefore, the Libertarian position is generally: get rid of the minimum wage and remove restrictions on immigration.
Now the only argument you could possibly make in support of artificially restricting wages (with either less immigration or higher minimum wages) in order to produce greater wealth is this one: a capital-intensive industry produces - over time - innovations that increase productivity, eventually outweighing the loss of efficiency that the artificial control initially produces.
But you have to be very careful with that argument. Just because you have a capital-intensive industry - artificial or otherwise - does not mean that enough innovation will magically emerge over time to offset the costs. And if you do think they magically appear - that innovation is some sort of inherent trait of the American tradition - then you might as well argue for targeted government subsidies to kick-start such innovation. The resulting innovation, whatever it is, would be essentially the same as any other artificial pressure in the marketplace.
Now Spencer did say one correct thing: pressure to increase base wages improves the overall standard of living. But again, he's mixing cause and effect. Movement towards capital is not generally a cause of higher standards of living ... it is an effect of pressure on base wages.
So then why does the average standard of living increase with pressure on base wages? Simple mathematics. Increasing base wages increases the income of those with the least amount of disposable income. It also has the effect of increasing prices, in proportion to the added labor costs. But the burden of higher prices is borne by everyone, including those with the highest amount of disposable income. Which means the rich half of the country can pay more for labor-intensive goods without demanding higher pay to compensate.
That has the effect of decreasing the variance in pay across all income levels ... hence, a higher standard of living for more people (when measured as a percentage increase/decrease in standard of living).
Now I haven't yet taken a position on anything, other than the basic mechanics of the economy. My views are basically conservative, in that I favor small changes rather than bold initiatives. That means:
1) Increase the minimum wage ... slowly, over time. As I stated previously, this would decrease the variance in income across the population, which - for many reasons - I think is a good thing.
2) Increase boarder controls, give amnesty to most of the 12 million illegal immigrants already hear (some have been here for decades), and slowly, over time, increase the number of legal immigrants.
Forget about kicking out 12 million people ... that would be an outrageous shock to our economy, and probably not in a good way. But someone here said we should control our boarders, and I agree. Plus, immigration in general has a lot of net benefits, not least of which is to lower the pressures of a low population replacement dynamic, a la Australia or Japan. And look at what Ireland has done lately with a large increase in immigration.
3) Find areas where government can target subsidies to improve innovation. I'm tired of hearing the blather about "nothing the government does is any good." Individuals make long-term investments of capital all the time. The only difference between them and government is, it's their money, so they tend to be more careful with it. That doesn't preclude the government from also making good decisions ... it just means we have to be careful about it.
Rural electrification is one example of a government program with a tremendous net benefit. The interstate highway system is another. And check out Canada's investments in extracting oil from less-than-ideal sources ... a long-term government investment that has paid off handsomely.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts.
Cheers.
Ted,
The minimum wage exists because some of us cannot (or will not) apply our education, energy and skills to add sufficient value to support ourselves at what government has determined is a minimum level. The minimum wage thus causes the small fraction of the full time labor pool which earns the minimum wage to be overcompensated; and, their employers costs to be inflated. Progressively increasing the minimum wage aggravates the problem.
My issue here is not with the physically or mentally disabled; it is with the uneducated, unskilled and unmotivated. I see no societal value in increasing their relative well-being, except through education, training and motivation.
Ed,
Thanks for your comments. An interesting point, and correct, I think, to a degree. But consider your assumptions. Most people are not self-employed; they find a job in the market place. What happens when the number of jobs is less than the number of people willing and able to work? Downward pressure on wages, as the extra workers negotiate lower pay to take an existing job from someone else.
Now, there's nothing wrong with a little competition. But clearly the equilibrium pay rate has nothing to do with education, energy, and skills ... it merely reflects the supply and demand of labor. That equilibrium is a natural measurement of what a job is really "worth" - hence, your thought that some are "overcompensated." But are there other measurements, perhaps equally as valid, for what a job is worth?
I believe there are. And just because a little competition is healthy doesn't preclude us from setting a limit as to what the bottom of the scale is.
Ted,
Obviously, we have set a limit on the bottom of the scale. Apparently, some illegals are working for compensation below the bottom of the scale. That is a good argument against unlimited illegal immigration.
However, the large employers of minimum wage workers in the US are, by and large, not paying minimum wage to new hires. They are paying higher wages to hire and retain workers with some minimum level of education, skill and motivation. Casual observation of the employees in these companies (especially fast food) reveals a relatively low level of education, skill and motivation even at that. Even those wages might need to be still higher, were it not for a glut of illegals with some skills.
The equilibrium pay rate at the lower margin may well be primarily a function of supply and demand. However, above the lower margin, the supply of potential employees with the requisite education, skills and motivation is still generally constrained, though certainly not in all markets. The constraints may have been eased by the presence of the illegals, but not eliminated.
Or maybe the right thing to do is whatever the market determines to be optimal? I don't see any compelling reason to prefer labor-intensive or capital-intensive mixes of inputs as a matter of policy. We can say silly things like shifting towards capital-intensive methods of production raises living standards but that's not likely to be true if its less efficient (in the economic sense).
there is so much confusion going on here that I do not know where to start or what people are actually advocating...
on one hand people seem to have pity with local illegals.. but most of all people are afraid that the standard of living will only deteriorate in the US if we introduce market efficient measures that are as free of intervention as possible?
people seem to despise low wages - claiming that the US is the richest country in the world because of its high wages...?
that to me sounds like: Bill Gates has build Microsoft because he is the richest man in the world...
my world-view works exactly the opposite way? to me - Bill Gates is the richest man in the World because he started Microsoft and not the other way around? Ted also made this argument clear in his long post!
The US has high wages because it is the richest country in the world.. but not the other way around. High wages are a symptom of wealth creation.. and wealth creation is a symptom of sticking to natural laws of economics? free markets, free enterprise, free creativity and limited government intervention, low or no entry barriers, low trade duties, etc is what has distinguished the US (and the EU) from other economies?
a free market makes us rich - and now that we ARE rich we get full of fears that we might lose our riches.. we start introducing laws that are supposed to keep the status quo for a fixed number of people but make the market less free and the country less open... what?
high wages without market demand/supply equilibrium are a distortion and so are low wages? both distortions carry socioeconomic costs and inefficiencies?
why are so many afraid of change and further growth. as in the past - we could become even richer and freer? we do not have to halt the population expansion of the US suddenly? Why now? A few centuries ago there were only native Indians on the continent? now we have many Spanish, Anglo-Saxon, German, Italian, Eastern European, Middle Eastern and Asian citizens?
why stop a good thing? what has happened that so many do not believe it could or should go on? or that suddenly every progress will be reversed instead of continued?
Ted
some specific questions for you...
And what is all this with capital- and labor intensive industries? Why is market equilibrium not good enough again for those and what is the link to the illegal immigrants who do exist and will exist...?
You write: That has the effect of decreasing the variance in pay across all income levels ... hence, a higher standard of living for more people (when measured as a percentage increase/decrease in standard of living).
after your good start you suddenly introduce something completely new: "the variance in pay across all income levels" - as something desirable..
then you move on the claim why your own current view is not libertarian - but rather conservative. Enforce border control - legalize the existing illegals...
I am a tad lost! too much of a jump for me... WHY? There are MANY WAYS and policies that could help decrease the variance in pay across all income levels... WHY link it to the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS issue per se? Some immigrants are poor compared to W Gates III but...
Prohibit drugs and close the border? That way our prisons will be empty again and our children save? Is that it?
what is wrong with:
http://www.edge.org/q2003/q03_blackmore.html
Hugo,
"There are MANY WAYS and policies that could help decrease the variance in pay across all income levels..."
the most effective of which would be decreasing the variance in contribution of workers at all responsibility levels.
Ed
There is eg "progressive" income taxation in place in the US or is there not?
I know that some parts of Switzerland have an even bigger middle class than the US.. but so does Silicon Valley compared to the Mid-West?
What is "the link to the immigration issue" is what interests me?
BTW - did you hear that Carlos Slim has overtaken Bill Gates as the richest man? The child of a Lebanese immigrant in Mexico! Close the borders - quick!!
Like it or not, until we implement world government, the nation-state remains the fundamental political unit. I expect our elected officials to maximize welfare of American citizens, just as I expect Mexican elected officials to maximize welfare of Mexican citizens.
So, short answer: no, they don't count.
Cheerful
I am not sure who you referring to but most here are only talking about maximizing welfare of American citizens and not Mexican? But there obviously are some illegal immigrants here and the question is - do they count? You say - they don't.. what does that mean? leave them illegal as it is?
BTW
Kenichi Ohmae? The End of the Nation-Sate..?
I say unless you were a slave - there never was one to begin with ;-) Regional economics in a border-less free market? but yes - the nation state exists as a legal entity.. so what? let them in or not - what is better for American citizens in your opinion?
What the hell has this to do with "world government" (what is it anyway)? and what do you mean with "until we implement it".. what happens then? it all sounds soo spooky and mysterious? and i am not certain how it relates to the immigrants issue that AMERICANS are facing?
let them in or not - what is better for American citizens in your opinion? and why?
That would seem to make closing the borders a win: Americans get higher wages and more automation. But it assumes that the immigrants themselves have absolutely no moral standing. Their lives aren't made better by the fact that America has automatic fruit picking machines.
Well, the final assertion is obviously wrong. If Americans develop fruit-picking machines then people in other countries will happily buy them at marginal cost. Consider motor vehicles. People in poor countries greatly improve their lives by using cars and trucks invented and supplied by more developed countries.[1]
But the preceding assertion is just unfair.
First note that Megan means "potential immigrants" as much as actual ones (that is, she's concerned with the moral standing of foreigners who might wish to immigrate to the USA even if they haven't done so yet). So Megan says Americans can only justify immigration restrictions if they assign zero value to foreigners' well-being. Nonsense. The (moral) value I put on someone else's well-being is not binary, it falls on a continuum.
For example, I doubt that Megan leaves her apartment and refrigerator doors open to all the bums who hang around the train station near her home. Does that mean she values them at zero, so low that she wouldn't even mind if they were murdered? Not at all. Megan just puts somewhat less value on the bums' well-being than her own. Megan will share some of her substance with bums-- no doubt she gives to charity and certainly she pays high taxes to support social services-- but she isn't willing to accept the risk-adjusted cost of bringing bums into her home, where one of them might attack her or buying groceries for all of them might impoverish her.
Most Americans, neither cruel and heartless nor irrational, put somewhat less value on foreigners' well-being than on the well-being of themselves and their neighbors and kinfolk. Most Americans wish foreigners no ill, but do not feel compelled to subsidize them. Why should we think that immoral? Neither alone nor in concert can Americans instantly raise all foreigners' standard of living to the present American level.[2] Americans may have a negative duty to refrain from mistreating foreigners (I think so), but certainly do not have a positive duty to impoverish themselves to subsidize foreigners. Let people in other countries develop their own economies! Indeed, as other commenters noted, it's possible that the best thing Americans can do for poor foreigners is to maintain an American society, open to trade but not immigration, with the means and incentive to advance technology and thereby benefit all mankind.
I think Megan has fallen into an intellectual pit-trap dug over a century ago by socialists and assiduously maintained ever since by clever leftists. She seems to accept the notion that all disparities of wealth result from immorality, or at least, are maintained chiefly by immorality. Now, I am not arguing for the obvious inversion of that view (that rich people are morally deserving). Rather, I suggest that one may gain wealth or luck into wealth for many reasons, that any duty one may have to share is determined by the cultural and legal context of the country he lives in, and that people have a right to cooperate (say, through democratic national political institutions!) to preserve and increase their wealth. That right will not support offensive measures but it fully justifies defensive ones, whether maintaining a park patrol to keep hunters out of a bird sanctuary or a border patrol to exclude foreigners from a rich country. In all cases there are people on the outside who would be richer if permitted to exploit economic opportunities on the inside-- and people on the inside who would be poorer if that occurred. No economic resource can long be maintained without some kind of exclusion. If we try to price morality only by the opportunity costs to people excluded from some resource (people, you will note, who had no hand in creating or developing the resource), we will make moral theory into a suicide pact.
People who think "institutions" and other social/ organizational patterns matter for economic development should be particularly sympathetic to the controlling the borders. As I have pointed out elsewhere, you can't really blame differences in geography or the availability of natural resources for economic differences between countries. The real source of such differences is the capabilities and attitudes of various peoples.
Importing people from poor countries is approximately the same as importing those countries' problems, at least in the short run. Admitting a tsunami of poor people into the USA would make the USA a poor country-- why should Americans agree to that? Not even potential immigrants want that! The only reason they want to leave their homes to enter the USA is because life is different in the USA! Considering how many more billions more poor people there are in this world than Americans, open borders would lead to a wage equilibrium below far below the level Americans consider bare subsistence.
[1] You might suggest that it would be immoral to export labor-saving technology to poor countries because that would harm certain people there; say, poor farmers who might be displaced by machinery. Well, just don't try to have things both ways. If you worry about harm to foreigners displaced by American machines, you should worry about harm to Americans displaced by low-wage immigrant labor. Since it is trivial to show that productivity gains due to technological improvements greatly exceed those due to reduced wages for brute labor, it is pretty easy to argue that national incomes will gain more from increased mechanization than from an enlarged labor supply. Or to put that in simpler terms, Americans can feed more foreigners by sending them fruit-picking machines than by hiring some of them to work in the USA.
[2] Even a total and even distribution of all American wealth around the world would make Americans desperately poor without making the average human being much richer.
Hi, Ed and Hugo. Thanks for your responses. Sorry about the delay in returning the favor.
Ed, I'm not sure why you say illegal immigrants may ease the constraints on higher-skill jobs. Are there a lot of high-skill illegal workers crossing the boarder? I'm not being ironic here ... I really don't know - I've just never heard that before. Also, how is the equilibrium of labor constrained at the higher levels of skill, if not by supply and demand? I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Anyway, you're right, of course, that there is a lot of variation in labor supply and demand, depending on what sector of the economy you're examining. But I was really speaking to general principles, not any particular sector. In general, if the lowest end workers are given more compensation, this will have two effects:
1) More demands will be placed on them to increase their "worth" to the employer, out of necessity. This is a motivating factor for them to increase their output, skills, education, etc, in order to retain these jobs. In other words, perhaps the general decline in skills of the base wage earners is connected to the general decline of the minimum wage (in adjusted dollars). It's worth considering, at least.
2) The slightly higher-skilled group of wage earners - those just above the low end - will have to be compensated above their minimum wage neighbors, in order to continue to encourage and reward their higher productivity. In other words, the effect of higher pay for the lowest wage earners propagates upwards, also benefiting - to a lesser degree - mid-level wage earners.
This upwards pressure on the lowest wages decreases the variance of earnings, as I stated earlier. To answer Hugh, this is a good thing because the lowest earners would get a much higher percentage-boost in disposable income compared to what the highest earners would lose. That means the lowest earners have more money to spend (and the propensity to spend is much higher for the poorest workers than the richest), increasing demand and creating jobs. Also, the lowest earners would not only have more incentive to increase their skill set, as mentioned before, but also greater means to do so.
I'm afraid, Ed, that I'm not convinced that "decreasing the variance in contribution of workers" would also decrease the variance across all income levels. Are you talking about moving towards a flat-tax here? If so, I'm afraid the evidence is against you: under Bush, the highest tax rates have shrunk, while the variance increased more than, say, under Clinton. (You can also compare the net increase in jobs under these two administrations for at least some evidence that my logic regarding income variance is sound.)
Finally, Hugh, sorry about the "jumps." I was trying - and failing - to be succinct. I define "conservative" to generally mean "cautious," which no longer seems to be conventional wisdom. But immigration and the economy were linked in the original post, so that's why I mentioned immigration. To be fair, increasing legal immigration does indeed put downward pressure on labor costs. That is an unfortunate side-effect.
However, even though kicking out the 12 million illegal workers now in the country would put upward pressure on labor costs, this is clearly the wrong way to do that. They are an integrated part of our economy, and removing them would be a huge disruption for no good reason. Amnesty is the only other option.
Mark said "Importing people from poor countries is approximately the same as importing those countries' problems." I strongly disagree. I believe the American system is among the best in the world for allowing those with intelligence, skill, and motivation to become highly productive and excel. Therefore, we would get a lot of people who would do very well here even though they faired poorly in their own country.
Again, I would point to the recent gains in Ireland as a prime example of the net benefit of increasing legal immigration. (Not unlimited immigration, just more. Remember: conservative = baby steps.)
By the way, Hugh ... I didn't mean to imply that we should close the boarder. But we should control the boarder. And I pretty much agree with the link about drugs, but that's a whole 'nother debate, and I've already exceeded my word lim
Ted
Thanks for your answer and especially your "normal" discussion style.. (i am glad that all the Marxists who disguise themselves as conservatives and who call us lefties have calmed down?) Problem is that I get lengthy..
I used to call myself a conservative as well. But then all the "conservatives" that I've known started implementing "policies" that Lenin would have been proud of?
E.g. it is the "conservatives" in the US who came up with the $20 BILLION PER YEAR in agricultural tax-money subsides (saturated fats via factory farms - MUCH worse than all trans-fats combined?)... Why - because the EU does the same.. I swear to God - that was even an OFFICIAL argument (we want to put pressure on the EU and lower our subsidies ONLY if you do..)
You know - our health care costs (private or public does not matter here) are exploding (we consume too much saturated fats, insulin and other sugars) - for the first time eating too much causes more economic and health damage on the planet than malnourishment.. and we take our tax dollars and put them into factory farms - $20 billion every year... THIS IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!!! This is random acting!!! No market transparency whatsoever... worst kind of distortions (them minimum wage introduced by Clinton is by far less harmful and distorting than the interventions by the Republicans?)
wtf?????? then I looked at the way we approach the environment - I was shocked! As if I am standing in front of Stalin and not Lenin anymore.. where are all the real economists and ecologists? there are more than enough people who have warned that the left should not take over the life-enabling topic.. anyway - enough distraction..
like yourself - I used to call myself Conservative - but cannot anymore because there is NO ideology and logic behind it anymore. the best Republican minds do not reason any different than Barbara Streisand...
I do call myself libertarian now. It seems that Republicans and Democrats both go to the car mechanic when the car breaks down, they go to the doctor when their child gets sick, but they RARELY go to REAL economist when there is something wrong with the economy.. when it comes to the economy they ask, again, car mechanics, business men, doctors - but God forbid - NO ECONOMIST (they are evil because the always want to quantify everything.. you do not put a price tag on some things man - or you are simply a cold bastard. Hey doc - please check my left breast but not my right cause I think I have felt something hard on the right side????)..
How many presidents or other politicians have studied Economics (not economic history, not socio-economics, no business MBA but real economics)???? There are only two schools left? Chicago in the US and the LSE in the UK? Every other school uses weekly magazines as text books?
Now - I do not care about baby-steps however and never considered it a "conservative" thing? When you catch lung cancer - don't reduce you smoking slowly.. baby-step or not must be gauged from situation to situation?
There is NO reason why we should NOT scrap ALL unhealthy farm-subsidies (saturated fats and toxic factory farms) over night... (immigrants working there never see a dime of this anyway. it only goes into the pockets of a handful - who use it to lobby for more. when you get $20 billion in tax subsidize ALONE every year - you have 1-2 million for lobbying and health propaganda.. is there ANYTHING less stateic than the USDA.. anything less democratic and free than the USDA? I call the USDA UDSSR ... Lamarck over Darwin)
And when it comes to our IMMIGRANT discussion - what most here are suggesting is happening anyway. The Republicans seem to be in favor of MOST poster's opinion? They want to legalize the existing base and find better immigration law without closing the border..
I still do not know what would happen however - if the borders where completely open?
Mark Seecof above, the only one who has gone into it a bid, has NO clue about economics and doesn't make sense after his first paragraph...
Come on everybody - what is difference between a closed and an open economy? (apart from the fact that the former cannot exist in reality?)