Donald Trump

[Dax777]

Setting aside that “black jobs” is dog megaphone racist, there is absolutely no evidence that immigration (even extremely high “burst” immigration over a short period) has any significant impact on employment or wages, other than some evidence that it actually may increase wages (and lower prices) in the mid-term. That includes lower and middle wage households.

We should return to "black jobs' at some point and compare and contrast with other statements to see which ones you think are 'dog megaphone racist '

But for now let's review the more intellectually stumulng

In fact, often immigrants are one of the only things actually propping up local economies.

Immigrants are not hurting U.S.-born workers: Six facts to set the record straight

The immigrant share of the labor force reached a record high of 18.6% in 2023, according to our analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.{{1}} Anti-immigration advocates have been out in full force, using this as a talking point for deeply misguided...

www.epi.org

What Immigration Means For U.S. Employment and Wages

Our nation’s immigration policy continues to be an issue of debate among policymakers, particularly the impact on the U.S. labor force. Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney highlight the economic evidence on what immigration means for U.S. jobs and the economy.

www.brookings.edu

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/Untying_the_Knot_Series_051909.pdf

Immigrants Contribute Greatly to U.S. Economy, Despite Administration’s “Public Charge” Rule Rationale | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Department of Homeland Security’s recently finalized “public charge” rule directs immigration officials to reject applications from individuals who seek to remain in or enter the U.S....

www.cbpp.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/27/economy-immigration-border-biden/

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21123/w21123.pdf

Here is the abstract from the NBER paper linked above:

Most research on the effects of immigration focuses on the effects of immigrants as adding to the supply of labor. By contrast, this paper studies the effects of immigrants on local labor demand, due to the increase in consumer demand for local services created by immigrants. This effect can attenuate downward pressure from immigrants on non-immigrants' wages, and also benefit non-immigrants by increasing the variety of local services available. For this reason, immigrants can raise native workers' real wages, and each immigrant could create more than one job. Using US Census data from 1980 to 2000, we find considerable evidence for these effects: Each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of them going to native workers, and 62% of these jobs are in non-traded services. Immigrants appear to raise local non-tradables sector wages and to attract native-born workers from elsewhere in the country. Overall, it appears that local workers benefit from the arrival of more immigrants.

Granted, I only read the abstract you provided, right there bolded above is the truth hiding in plain sight:

I.e. that there is a downward pressure from immigrants on non immigrant wages...This is exactly what I said.

However, that downward pressure CAN be attenuated the increase in consumer demand created by the influx of immigrants.

I find this kind of language unconvincing. Thre I say even political. It sound like the researcher had a conclusion it was seeking to reach and found a way to get there. At least that's what the abstract suggests.

Just because something 'can' have an effect doesn't mean it in fact did.

Anyway I found this abstract from the same site much more convincing:

"This paper asks the following question: what was the effect of surging immigration on average and individual wages of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004? We emphasize the need for a general equilibrium approach to analyze this problem. The impact of immigrants on wages of U.S.-born workers can be evaluated only by accounting carefully for labor market and capital market interactions in production. Using such a general equilibrium approach we estimate that immigrants are imperfect substitutes for U.S.- born workers within the same education-experience-gender group (because they choose different occupations and have different skills). Moreover, accounting for a reasonable speed of adjustment of physical capital we show that most of the wage effects of immigration accrue to native workers within a decade. These two facts imply a positive and significant effect of the 1990-2004 immigration on the average wage of U.S.-born workers overall, both in the short run and in the long run. This positive effected results from averaging a positive effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with at least a high school degree and a small negative effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with no high school degree."

LAt me summarize the part that agreed with me: i.e: the negative effect on low wage workers part

 

[SebastianBlue]

We should return to "black jobs' at some point and compare and contrast with other statements to see which ones you think are 'dog megaphone racist '

But for now let's review the more intellectually stumulng




Granted, I only read the abstract you provided, right there bolded above is the truth hiding in plain sight:

I.e. that there is a downward pressure from immigrants on non immigrant wages...This is exactly what I said.

However, that downward pressure CAN be attenuated the increase in consumer demand created by the influx of immigrants.

I find this kind of language unconvincing. Thre I say even political. It sound like the researcher had a conclusion it was seeking to reach and found a way to get there. At least that's what the abstract suggests.

Just because something 'can' have an effect doesn't mean it in fact did.

Anyway I found this abstract from the same site much more convincing:

"This paper asks the following question: what was the effect of surging immigration on average and individual wages of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004? We emphasize the need for a general equilibrium approach to analyze this problem. The impact of immigrants on wages of U.S.-born workers can be evaluated only by accounting carefully for labor market and capital market interactions in production. Using such a general equilibrium approach we estimate that immigrants are imperfect substitutes for U.S.- born workers within the same education-experience-gender group (because they choose different occupations and have different skills). Moreover, accounting for a reasonable speed of adjustment of physical capital we show that most of the wage effects of immigration accrue to native workers within a decade. These two facts imply a positive and significant effect of the 1990-2004 immigration on the average wage of U.S.-born workers overall, both in the short run and in the long run. This positive effected results from averaging a positive effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with at least a high school degree and a small negative effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with no high school degree."

LAt me summarize the part that agreed with me: i.e: the negative effect on low wage workers part

So your response can be boiled down to “these many studies and articles summarising why immigrants not only do not usually have a negative impact on native-born worker wages or unemployment but actually more often have a positive impact on not only native-born worker wage (and a deflationary effect on prices)—with no measurable impact on employment—but can actually be one of the few factors propping up local (or even national) economies that you have provided conflict with my entrenched dogmatic worldview so I reject them because I don’t like that and will create a nonsensical rationalisation focusing on one small element of one of the many studies and articles that allows me to maintain my fallacious worldview.”

I will give you this: you are nothing if not consistent.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Or perhaps someone thought better of an innocent joke knowing the likely characters lurking.

Nuff Z.
Back to Tramp.

 

[FlemishDuck]

LAt me summarize the part that agreed with me: i.e: the negative effect on low wage workers part

I dont doubt it necessarily.

Thing is, even our technological evolution, if likely not FOREMOST our technological evolution and our increasing demand for skill, is really whats crushing the under educated class. And its not just that stopping immigration wont solve that, its also that is not even realistic to be able to stop so much immigration imho. There is no strong reason for a business owner to favor or even hire a native that does not have the intellectual capacity to effectivly do the job. For a similar reason, many country's consciously try to attract highly educated people and this even causes issues of "brain drain".

To be fair, what we really should evolve to, as a consequence of our evolution in automation, is that we all work less for more money. But the monetary benifits of automation are squarly for the owning class, something which already increases the wealth devide, while making more and more jobs obsolete at an increasing pace. It's only going to take x amount of time in technological evolution for that there be no work for practically anyone as pretty much everything will be automated, but that does not necessarily lead to a social solution of wealth distribution rather than one where the rich have it all and the vast majority remain with nothing. Much of the economic issues the poor uneducated experience today is a consequence of us being partway that process of Entrepreneurs replacing people with automation.

The problem then is that to "blame it all on immigration" hardly really points to the actual primary source of the issue, in fact it benifits those who actually gain from the issue. Social inequality and/or economic destitution is blamed on the "competition of other poor" by ... the rich, or rich men like Trump who cause such social inequality trough the system they favor. And this then makes it a perfect vessel for "divide et impera".

Most notably indeed, the very party's that are often most staunchly against immigration are also those who clamor for tax cuts for the rich and less regulations or workers protections etc. They always present themselves as the economic genuises of it all and then typically propose the most simplistic style of laissez faire economics. Typically this clammors for less social spending, typically this hurts the poor and uneducated most. From the perspective of this analysis, the poor who vote for trump are like Turkey's voting for Christmass, just your typical representative politician with loads of fancy false promises that will backstab the average Joe as ever so often happens when the people think they have a champion in representative democracy.

Was 4 years of a Trump presidency really too few to fullfill his promise in that regard? Apparently yes.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’ll say one thing, everyone who voted for Trump is uneducated.

 

[Dax777]

So your response can be boiled down to “these many studies and articles summarising why immigrants not only do not usually have a negative impact on native-born worker wages or unemployment but actually more often have a positive impact on not only native-born

Again, your abstract did NOT say this. It said and I quote
"This effect can attenuate downward pressure from immigrants on non-immigrants' wages." I.e Even the writers of your abstract acknowledges the negative effects immigration can have on non -immigrant wages but argues (which by the way was the point of this paper) that such negative effects can be reduced by all the positive effects the immigrants bring.

Do you not see how this does not disagree with my point?

worker wage (and a deflationary effect on prices)—with no measurable impact on employment—but can actually be one of the few factors propping up local (or even national) economies that you have provided conflict with my entrenched dogmatic worldview so I reject them because I don’t like that and will create a nonsensical rationalisation focusing on one small element of one of the many studies and articles that allows me to maintain my fallacious worldview.”

I will give you this: you are nothing if not consistent.

No, they don't disagree with my world view. They in fact make the very claims I have made, but with additions that don't necessarily change my position.

The claim at issue is this: Does illegal immigration have a negative effect on low skilled workers?

The answer to that question according to my claims and the ones from the articles you have posted is YES IT DOES...

The only difference is that your article goes on to say, BUT immigration creates more choices, increase commerce, reduces prices etc. and all this is a net positive for the non-immigrant.

But again, I never argued it didn't do any of these other stuff claimed. Rather I argued( correctly, if we are to believe the abstracts you provided), that illegal immigration has a negative effect on local wages.

By the way, it's worth noting that most of the studies you provided did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration and also they mostly studied the effects of immigration on wages generally. Aa opposed to the wages of Low skill workers.

In contrast, the abstract I provided distinguished between skilled work and low skilled work and noted a negative effect of immigration specifically on low skilled workers.

That the conclusion you drew from that exchange is that I'm just a dogmatic anti-intellectual who is trying to hang on to his world view speaks to what I was saying earlier.

I'm sorry you can't see I am actually drilling down at what's at issue here: Does Illegal Immigration have a negative effect on local low skill wages?

The studies you provided obviously did not answer that question because that wasn't their focus.

But we can still draw enough information from them to discuss the issue.

I'm not the one with the dogma here...

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I’ll say one thing, everyone who voted for Trump is uneducated.

Not entirely true. I personally know more than a handful of folk who have a decent level of education and voted for him in '16 and '20 and are willing to hold their noses and vote for him again this year.

 

[Koniec]

I’ll say one thing, everyone who voted for Trump is uneducated.

Maybe poorly or under educated, bigoted, small minded, sexist, gullible or a c**t. But not uneducated.

 

[Dax777]

I dont doubt it necessarily.

Thing is, even our technological evolution, if likely not FOREMOST our technological evolution and our increasing demand for skill, is really whats crushing the under educated class. And its not just that stopping immigration wont solve that, its also that is not even realistic to be able to stop so much immigration imho. There is no strong reason for a business owner to favor or even hire a native that does not have the intellectual capacity to effectivly do the job. For a similar reason, many country's consciously try to attract highly educated people and this even causes issues of "brain drain".

To be fair, what we really should evolve to, as a consequence of our evolution in automation, is that we all work less for more money. But the monetary benifits of automation are squarly for the owning class, something which already increases the wealth devide, while making more and more jobs obsolete at an increasing pace. It's only going to take x amount of time in technological evolution for that there be no work for practically anyone as pretty much everything will be automated, but that does not necessarily lead to a social solution of wealth distribution rather than one where the rich have it all and the vast majority remain with nothing. Much of the economic issues the poor uneducated experience today is a consequence of us being partway that process of Entrepreneurs replacing people with automation.

Don't disagree with the general tenor here

The problem then is that to "blame it all on immigration" hardly really points to the actual primary source of the issue, in fact it benifits those who actually gain from the issue. Social inequality and/or economic destitution is blamed on the "competition of other poor" by ... the rich, or rich men like Trump who cause such social inequality trough the system they favor. And this then makes it a perfect vessel for "divide et impera".

To point out tha thing A has a negative effect on thing B, doesn't mean you are blaming everything wrong with thing B on thing A. Just that there is an added negative effect.

Most notably indeed, the very party's that are often most staunchly against immigration are also those who clamor for tax cuts for the rich and less regulations or workers protections etc. They always present themselves as the economic genuises of it all and then typically propose the most simplistic style of laissez faire economics. Typically this clammors for less social spending, typically this hurts the poor and uneducated most. From the perspective of this analysis, the poor who vote for trump are like Turkey's voting for Christmass, just your typical representative politician with loads of fancy false promises that will backstab the average Joe as ever so often happens when the people think they have a champion in representative democracy.

Our economic philosophies are different but I respect your position. That said, I don't think it's as simple and as straightforward as you put it There are many motivations underlying why the different political groups take the positions they take on different issues. And often the least skilled are hurt by both at some level.

Was 4 years of a Trump presidency really too few to fullfill his promise in that regard? Apparently yes.

I particularly was hoping for someone other than Trump. If he wins, he is a lame duck President. Especially if Democrats win the House back and keep the Senate. Both of which are definitely possible.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Again, your abstract did NOT say this. It said and I quote
"This effect can attenuate downward pressure from immigrants on non-immigrants' wages." I.e Even the writers of your abstract acknowledges the negative effects immigration can have on non -immigrant wages but argues (which by the way was the point of this paper) that such negative effects can be reduced by all the positive effects the immigrants bring.

Do you not see how this does not disagree with my point?



No, they don't disagree with my world view. They in fact make the very claims I have made, but with additions that don't necessarily change my position.

The claim at issue is this: Does illegal immigration have a negative effect on low skilled workers?

The answer to that question according to my claims and the ones from the articles you have posted is YES IT DOES...

The only difference is that your article goes on to say, BUT immigration creates more choices, increase commerce, reduces prices etc. and all this is a net positive for the non-immigrant.

But again, I never argued it didn't do any of these other stuff claimed. Rather I argued( correctly, if we are to believe the abstracts you provided), that illegal immigration has a negative effect on local wages.

By the way, it's worth noting that most of the studies you provided did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration and also they mostly studied the effects of immigration on wages generally. Aa opposed to the wages of Low skill workers.

In contrast, the abstract I provided distinguished between skilled work and low skilled work and noted a negative effect of immigration specifically on low skilled workers.

That the conclusion you drew from that exchange is that I'm just a dogmatic anti-intellectual who is trying to hang on to his world view speaks to what I was saying earlier.

I'm sorry you can't see I am actually drilling down at what's at issue here: Does Illegal Immigration have a negative effect on local low skill wages?

The studies you provided obviously did not answer that question because that wasn't their focus.

But we can still draw enough information from them to discuss the issue.

I'm not the one with the dogma here...

None of what you have just said was supported in any of the studies I provided, nor in the preponderance of evidence available today on the subject.

You are choosing to isolate very small elements of one paper, in which the totality of the findings contradict your position, and are equivocating to allow for the dissonance you are exhibiting.

By the way, many of the studies do take in to account estimated “illegal immigration”, that is part of the overall demographic data used in conjunction with economic data.