5 ms·

The bottom quartile of workers still has to work somewhere.

by xiaoma 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
Some will be pushed out. That means more people will require government subsidies and it contributes to building a virtual "wall" by pushing low skills immigrants out of the shrinking low skills labor pool. With automation Trump (or Hillary) won't have to visit immigration reform, there will be no jobs to attract people at the lowest skills levels. There will still be a pull on high skills professionals.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why is this a good thing? If a Mexican can do a job cheaper than a machine, why shouldn't he be hired to do so? It makes life better for him and for the guy who doesn't need to buy a machine. If you really dislike Mexicans and are willing to harm Americans in order to keep them away, I guess it makes sense. I guess I'm just not a fan of Trump/Bernie/Hillary style nationalism.
  - mc32 11y ago
    That's a characterization I didn't make. What I stated were the consequences of higher min wages. It benefits citizens as well as high skills foreign nationals in the US but is possibly detrimental to low skills labor. There is no judgement in that, just stating the consequences, some positive, some negative. Not all low skills labor come from directly across the border. On the other hand it benefits higher skills workers from across the border because there will be more demand for high skills labor.
  - blfr 11y ago
    It's a good thing because it expands our ability to automate things. It rewards innovation rather than manipulating the immigration process. And you know why people don't want Mexicans to flood America. I've seen you link to Putnam's study which shows that diversity destroys trust and communities. There are real externalities here.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I generally care very little about psychological externalities, whether they be dirty Mexicans destroying trust or Halloween costumes at Yale being too scary. (Hat tip to Bryan Caplan who pointed out the parallel. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/nativism_agains.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/nativism_agains.... ) I do, however, support your right to put up a "No Mexicans" sign and make your own house a safe space.
      - blfr 11y ago
        That's a bizarre stance. It's normal that people don't want to have, say, a brick factory built next to their house because it would impact their psychological well-being. Trust between members of society, however, is not a matter of individual psychology. It's one of the crucial differences between western countries where you can expect a level of fairness in dealing with strangers, and the third world where you have to rely on your family and clan. It's what enables the markets to work, the justice system, the bureaucracy. Not to mention making living more pleasant. And anyway, why would the "no Mexicans" policy be OK at a single house level, and not a gated community, city, state, country?
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Brick factories emit pollution. A much better comparison would be to a porno factory in a soundproofed house - I just don't like the thought of gay dudes fellating each other right next door, and I don't like to see them walking out to their car in their leather pants! With a functioning justice system, trust between members of society is something that can be outsourced. And if you are really worried about it, don't do business with Mexicans. I am sympathetic to the problem of political externalities - it would be terrible if the US were to be overrun by people who vote for Trump, Hillary or Bernie. I take issue with your "no Mexicans" policy when you threaten me with violence if I don't participate in it. Same issue I have with Jim Crow, really (remember that Jim Crow was a "must discriminate" law).
        11y ago

The bottom quartile of workers still has to work somewhere.

by xiaoma 11y ago

The bottom quartile of workers still has to work somewhere.

mc32 11y ago

Some will be pushed out. That means more people will require government subsidies and it contributes to building a virtual "wall" by pushing low skills immigrants out of the shrinking low skills labor pool. With automation Trump (or Hillary) won't have to visit immigration reform, there will be no jobs to attract people at the lowest skills levels. There will still be a pull on high skills professionals.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why is this a good thing? If a Mexican can do a job cheaper than a machine, why shouldn't he be hired to do so? It makes life better for him and for the guy who doesn't need to buy a machine. If you really dislike Mexicans and are willing to harm Americans in order to keep them away, I guess it makes sense. I guess I'm just not a fan of Trump/Bernie/Hillary style nationalism.
- mc32 11y ago
  That's a characterization I didn't make. What I stated were the consequences of higher min wages. It benefits citizens as well as high skills foreign nationals in the US but is possibly detrimental to low skills labor. There is no judgement in that, just stating the consequences, some positive, some negative. Not all low skills labor come from directly across the border. On the other hand it benefits higher skills workers from across the border because there will be more demand for high skills labor.
- blfr 11y ago
  It's a good thing because it expands our ability to automate things. It rewards innovation rather than manipulating the immigration process. And you know why people don't want Mexicans to flood America. I've seen you link to Putnam's study which shows that diversity destroys trust and communities. There are real externalities here.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I generally care very little about psychological externalities, whether they be dirty Mexicans destroying trust or Halloween costumes at Yale being too scary. (Hat tip to Bryan Caplan who pointed out the parallel. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/nativism_agains.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/nativism_agains.... ) I do, however, support your right to put up a "No Mexicans" sign and make your own house a safe space.
    - blfr 11y ago
      That's a bizarre stance. It's normal that people don't want to have, say, a brick factory built next to their house because it would impact their psychological well-being. Trust between members of society, however, is not a matter of individual psychology. It's one of the crucial differences between western countries where you can expect a level of fairness in dealing with strangers, and the third world where you have to rely on your family and clan. It's what enables the markets to work, the justice system, the bureaucracy. Not to mention making living more pleasant. And anyway, why would the "no Mexicans" policy be OK at a single house level, and not a gated community, city, state, country?
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Brick factories emit pollution. A much better comparison would be to a porno factory in a soundproofed house - I just don't like the thought of gay dudes fellating each other right next door, and I don't like to see them walking out to their car in their leather pants! With a functioning justice system, trust between members of society is something that can be outsourced. And if you are really worried about it, don't do business with Mexicans. I am sympathetic to the problem of political externalities - it would be terrible if the US were to be overrun by people who vote for Trump, Hillary or Bernie. I take issue with your "no Mexicans" policy when you threaten me with violence if I don't participate in it. Same issue I have with Jim Crow, really (remember that Jim Crow was a "must discriminate" law).
        11y ago