12 ms·

In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

121 points by simonsarris 10y ago

dang 10y ago
Here's a rare thing, a submission on a classic flamewar topic that is substantive and at least partly grounded in genuine study. We'll try taking the usual penalty off the thread and see what happens. We've also replaced the title with a more neutral sentence from the article. All: if you comment in this thread, please be civil and substantive and avoid political rants. Let's see if HN can reach a higher level than usual.
- davidw 10y ago
  Borjas is known among economists as one of the few proponents of the theory that immigration does hurt US workers at all. His findings are disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas
thescribe 10y ago
This may be the best article on immigration I have read in a long time. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding, but why don't we use immigration as a knob just like we use interest rates or any other government tool. Too few jobs? Lower the quota. Too many unfilled jobs? Raise the quota. It seems really simple to me.
- 0verD0ses 10y ago
  It's not quite as simple as that. Immigration can in some cases actually create more jobs in the economy, but in other cases doesn't have this effect, so its hard to pinpoint the optimal amount of immigration for economic growth.
  - norikki 10y ago
    I would love to see the study that can find a case where immigration creates more jobs than it consumes.
    - jack9 10y ago
      In the farm industry, chicken processing industry, etc. In the 80s, there were buses dedicated to shipping in immigrants to do the manual labor.
    - goodcanadian 10y ago
      Immigration, almost trivially, increases the size of the economy: more mouths to feed, more people to house, more demand for creature comforts. So, immigration increases jobs. Whether it creates more jobs than it consumes is a bit trickier. My money is on, "yes," but I suppose it will always depend on the details. I would also like to see a study; I'm sure someone must have done one.
      - norikki 10y ago
        The question is really: do you care that there is more wealth overall, or do you care that you personally are better off. Most sane people have no urgent desire to start cramming more people into their neighborhoods. What people want are higher standards of living, not the same or worse standards of living split among more people, even if the overall economy is 'bigger'. Many third world population booms are decimating quality-of-life, especially in places like Nigeria, India, and Brazil. The only people who benefit from a bigger overall population and economy at the expense of individuals being better off, are the people at the very top. They want a bigger pie because then their companies have bigger markets to sell their goods. If it comes at the cost of increasing the population so that everyone else is individually poorer, they don't care. You can't become a billionaire in a country of only 100,000 people. There aren't enough people from whom wealth can be concentrated.
        goodcanadian 10y ago
        Yes, I read the article, and he does seem to imply that is the case with immigrants at the bottom level of skills. However, he also suggests that the total picture is much more complicated . . . it all depends on the details. My money is still on it being a net gain, overall.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  I think one of the differences is that there's the "knob" and then there's the illegal immigration and both have an impact now and well into the future. "Too few jobs" today doesn't mean it will be the same next year or ten years from now. An interest rate change tomorrow will have an immediate impact and shift longer patterns but can be undone or furthered at a later time.. and 10 years from now, it will be lost in the noise.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >but why don't we use immigration as a knob just like we use interest rates or any other government tool. Too few jobs? Lower the quota. Too many unfilled jobs? Raise the quota. It seems really simple to me. That's exactly what nations do for legal immigration. But for illegal immigration there's no knob. (Well, no pleasant and easily controllable knob).
- henrybaxter 10y ago
  I believe the author is arguing that, regardless of where you turn the knob (except off), you'll end up with a redistribution of wealth that helps some and hinders others. Put another way: any amount of immigration with current policies will mean more money for immigrants and employers of immigrants, and less money for native workers they are displacing/competing with.
- tpeo 10y ago
  I'd just like to point out that interest rates are really unlike any other policy instrument. Compare them with other policy instruments (regulations, taxes, social programs, public works) and you'll see that they're more easily changed and create much less hassle among voters. Plus, they have a much more obvious impact in people's pockets and welfare, at least from the viewpoint of the voters.
0verD0ses 10y ago
This is true, but voters are not good at dealing with ambiguity, unlike (some) economists. If politicians muddy their message by focusing too much on the small disadvantages of immigration compared to its large advantages, it will make them look unsure of themselves.
jkot 10y ago
There is also third side in this story; people who jump through hoops to get legal option to work in US. We had to fill mountains of paper work, spend thousands of dollars, wait for years... But every illegal immigrant seems to have more rights than us.
- amunicio 10y ago
  How does every illegal immigrant have more rights than you? Mind to clarify?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    They get to stay in the country, work, some welfare etc, but without having to go through the system in the same bureaucratic way.
    - q75ir082hq 10y ago
      In what way do illegal immigrants get more welfare? I'm aware the some programs are restricted for legal immigrants (pending some waiting period or citizenship), but to my knowledge they are more restricted for those without legal status.
      - norikki 10y ago
        http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11.pdf http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-w...
      - internaut 10y ago
        I believe jkot is largely referring to opportunity costs.
      - dang 10y ago
        Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.
caseysoftware 10y ago
I think this is the key quote to all of this: "Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program." If you're worried about income inequality and improving the opportunities for people near the bottom, the current system is devastating and only making those situations more pronounced.. which will have an impact for years, if not generations.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  I'm not sure I get his solution. "...massive new government programs to supervise a massive wealth redistribution totaling tens of billions of dollars" How? Is he thinking that high school dropouts will all of a sudden go back to school? Or just longer unemployment and more welfare, which are unhealthy for people to be on for extended periods.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Probably he is. Retraining is the classical economics answer to the question of a skills mismatch in the population.
feklar 10y ago
Microsoft quote in this article advocating H-1Bs is interesting, as they spent $90M USD to open a research center in Canada in order to avoid H-1Bs. When asked why they didn't expand their Redmond base for the new research center and make use of H-1B visas they gave an answer about 'needing to diversify geographically and reach out to hubs that can offer new talent' which I just read as 'wanting to pay lesser salaries and benefits'.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  Maybe there is much truth in the statement from Microsoft. The standard of living in Canada is not worse than in the US. And Canada's immigration system is point-based - if you meet the criteria (education, age, language &c) the equivalent of a green card is a certainty. In the US, on the other hand, most every job applicant must go through H1-B lottery, which opens up once a year, and it isn't guaranteed that the desired applicant will get a spot.
- biocomputation 10y ago
  H1-B is a socially destructive program that needs to end. Big companies, in tech and otherwise, use it to keep labor costs down and as another negotiating tool. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! It's funny how all these huge companies that have billions in cash, and who don't pay their fair share of taxes, are always crying poor and wanting more subsidies from someone. H1-B is effectively a subsidy provided by US workers to unfathomably rich, tax-dodging corporations.
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    All H1-B needs is for the superstars who come over (since the employer supposedly can't find qualified US candidates) is to make wages corresponding with that status. Make the minimum pay for an H1-B 140% of the local average for a person at that position, and that market will evaporate overnight. As it should.
    - biocomputation 10y ago
Animats 10y ago
This suggests a path to a solution - a higher minimum wage for immigrants. At the low end, this could be implemented by requiring 2x the minimum wage for anyone whose residency or citizenship hadn't been verified through E-verify. At the high end, we just need tougher enforcement of the H1-B visa pay rules. To make this work, if you've been underpaid as a non-US person, you can file a complaint, and even if you're illegal in the US, that would get you a U visa, which allows up to four years residency. Winning the complaint would get the employee double pay retroactively plus a green card. That would encourage employees to file complaints, and would encourage employers to be much more careful about whom they hire. California could try this on its own, and should.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  If you up the minimum wage, employers will just use illegals. Because they can, and competitive market forces will push them into it. The only long term answer is to have responsible, secure borders and reasonable amounts of controlled immigration. There's no need for a special minimum wage for immigrants.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Don't forget harsh punitive penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, penalties which should pierce the corporate veil.
- CM30 10y ago
  It's a good idea, but there are a few issues that still need ironing out: 1. Quite a few immigrants don't know their rights, or what the minimum wage is. Maybe I'm off the mark here, maybe some documentation you have to sign/read to get your visa mentions it, I don't know. But I suspect in a lot of cases, immigrants are just believing they're being paid a fair wage, and don't bother to find out if they actually are. So that probably needs to be addressed. 2. Quite a few people simply don't care, and hence wouldn't report it. If you've immigrated from a poor enough country, then just about any US wage is far higher than you'd ever get at home. Why rock the boat? And so you'd need to get these people out of said mindset. Or at least, have better ways to check what people are being paid in these roles, even if the actual worker doesn't care.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
norikki 10y ago
>Trump might cite my work, but he overlooks my findings that the influx of immigrants can potentially be a net good for the nation, increasing the total wealth of the population. >The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all.
- jack9 10y ago
  I don't understand. Potential to increase wealth. Currently the reality is redistribution from the lowest skilled workers to the business owners resulting in a theoretical wash (barely affected total wealth). Yeah, that's one of the points of the article.
internaut 10y ago
Looking at this exclusively from an economic perspective is a strategic mistake. The Irish say it puts the cart before the horse. Migration does not merely bring units of labour or transfers of capital. In fact that is the most benign aspect of this subject. Nobody has a problem with his fellow man looking for his next opportunity, not even the most rabid nationalists I know, and doubtless as NRX I know more than most. The central problem is something that at first appears to have nothing to do with migration. Namely; how is wealth actually created? There are many answers to this question. Nearly all the obvious ones are wrong. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that almost every aid program, every economic structuring program in developing countries has repeatedly failed. I suggest that we don't actually know the answer. Perhaps we do not have all the correct axioms. Perhaps extrapolating from having the correct axioms is just infeasible. We do not know why nations rise or fall. There are just people who pretend to. What we do know is history and the present. In history we know 4 centuries ago English and the Dutch began growing at quite a different trajectory to the others. They were gradually followed by most European states. In the present the most powerful nations on earth are the result of that outgrowth, with the Asian Giants only coming onstream very recently roughly a half century ago. I believe there are two things to take note here. 1. Whatever economic growth is, it doesn't transmit itself parsimoniously via word of mouth. We also know it has nothing to do with education, unbelievable though that may seem, there is ample evidence for this. North Korea is quite literate. The Communists were in general quite well read even as they fucked their countries into the ground. There are many African schools filled with enthusiastic learners (and disappointment when the economy proffers no value to much of this learning). 2. Economic growth is very discriminating. Based on culture. I think of culture as a collective idea network. There is a Occidental culture, there is an Oriental culture. The Occidental one grokked economic growth first, followed by the Japanese, Singporeans, Koreans, Taiwanese and then the Chinese with their SEZ. With the exception of the Japanese, that was very slow... suggesting that there is something... not simple... going on. The Asians after all are often very talented individuals. This is something about the collective. Plainly the cultures that did not grok economic growth at all are the Africans and the Middle Easterners ex Israel. That may be starting to change with Iran but it is early days yet. Having oil is like winning a lottery ticket, the native economies are extremely impoverished and w/o oil... Plainly the 'Protestant Work Ethic' is rot. Economic growth is not native to white people and certainly not a particular religion. Despite that, the cultural explanation makes most sense in light of the economic disparities. The interesting thing is that we know it is culture because of colonization. We know it is in the particular people but not necessarily in the genetics or their education. If you have large numbers of migrants from MENA, places that have not grokked economic growth, then they are bringing a dysfunction with them. They may be carrying a silent burden, a deadly memetic anti-matter, and don't even know it. The individuals may be nice. Non-terrorists. Non-religious even. Friendly and civic minded neighbors. None of that matters if their network, which does not produce economic growth interferes with our network that does. This is the great fear that afflicts nationalists instinctively. Because again, if culture is what drives economic growth, and signs points to yes, then absorbing another culture which does not will lead to lots of little zero sum games, culminating in crime, terrorism and finally in broad conflict. You see it happening in France today, it is gradually but surely turning into a horror show. That is the problem I never see addressed by migration discussions. No, not race, not genes, but the network problem. Economists by the way know all of this. They just choose to call what I'm talking about 'institutions'. They really are spineless. What are institutions but groups of people acting in a certain way, namely; a culture.
Const-me 10y ago
Why is that regulated by federal government at all? Shouldn’t there be different immigration regulations in the Silicon Valley and in e.g. rural Ohio?
- usaar333 10y ago
  Wouldn't that require having an internal visa system? While some countries do it (China), it's a bit antithetical to having a unified country with a single foreign policy
  - Const-me 10y ago
    Currently, if you’ll get a regular L-1 US visa, you’ll only be able to work for the petitioning company. This effectively limits your ability to move. The system works without internal borders within the US. Also look at Canada. Different Canadian provinces have their own immigration programs, with different caps and criteria: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/provincial/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/provincial/
    - klipt 10y ago
      How enforceable is Canada's system? I believe permanent residents have the right to live anywhere in Canada (citizens certainly do), so what's to stop people applying through the easiest province and then moving wherever they want?
      - khuey 10y ago
        Not very. http://www.cknw.com/2016/08/17/quebec-immigrant-investor-program-under-fire-for-pushing-foreign-buyers-to-vancouver/ http://www.cknw.com/2016/08/17/quebec-immigrant-investor-pro...
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  That sounds like a great way to ensure that rural Ohioans never have a shot at a job in Silicon Valley.
an_cap 10y ago
The article quantifies the major cost of increased immigration as "the earnings of [high school dropouts] dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year." It describes the benefits to immigrants as "Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated." To take a specific example, maids in India make about $3 a day. If they had the opportunity to move to the US and do similar work at say minimum wage that is at least a 10-fold increase in their earnings. While the cost of living in the US is much higher than in India, its mostly because the quality of life here is much better. Back home she probably lives in a tiny shack in a slum with no running water. If she lived in the US college-dormitory-style, it would be a massive upgrade of her living conditions and still allow her to save money to say give her children a better education. So what we're weighing here is $1000 reduction in the wages of some of the most vulnerable Americans against a life-altering opportunity to the most vulnerable global poor. I don't really see how Borjas (or anyone else) can pick the side of the Americans in this ethical dilemma. Take another example. Say a college educated Indian female decides that she is sick of the sexism in India and wants a better life for herself. Using the large amount of resources online she teaches herself programming and becomes as good as people who graduate from coding bootcamps in the US (so not a stellar programmer but a net positive with proper guidance). Her primary competitive advantage is that she's willing to work harder and for lower wages than the Americans graduating from coding bootcamps. Requiring that she be paid the same (or more as many commenters have suggested) prices her out of the market. So the choice we face is whether we allow her to work as a developer for say $40k a year which she would vastly prefer to being stuck in the shitty circumstances of her birth at the expense of perhaps reducing wages for American programmers from say $70k to $60k a year. Again I don't really see how this is a difficult ethical decision.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Ten thousand dollars a year would be almost all of what I send home annually to help family members who haven't had my good fortune. For others in my family, a thousand dollars a year would make the difference between being able to get by, if not comfortably, and not being able to get by at all. I feel that perhaps there is some degree of nuance here you've overlooked.
- deleted 10y ago
h4nkoslo 10y ago
It would be more possible to take leftist arguments about the benefits of immigration in good faith if they weren't simultaneously crowing about how ongoing immigration will shift US politics permanently to the left. Frankly I don't care if immigration is Good For The Economy. It amounts to intentional population replacement, explicitly aimed at permantly changing the makeup, politics, culture, etc of the country. My children will suffer as a result.
whybroke 10y ago
a fantastic article and wonderful to have a calm conversation on the topic. I can not fault anything in the article but I would add that immigrants also bring dynamism and new ideas to the country. Not necessarily of economic value but certainly of value. For example the relative greater openness and tolerance levels of the cities with larger immigrant populations might have become that way because of their arrival. Obviously I may have confused cause and effect, obviously this may or may not be worth the economic consequences but I think it is worth thinking about.
- draugadrotten 10y ago
  > For example the relative greater openness and tolerance levels of the cities with larger immigrant populations might have become that way because of their arrival. Looking at European cities with larger immigrant populations, "greater openness and tolerance" isn't exactly what comes to mind to describe the situation.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Seems a bit unfair. Look at cities like London or Zurich. Very high immigrant populations, and the population is comfortable with that.
anotheryou 10y ago
Hm, but no word about humanity. If it might be worth the loss for the benefit of the immigrants coming from even poorer circumstances. This however would still not justify the income shift to the employers, but that could be handled separately.
jasonjei 10y ago
I'm going to state a belief that may not be very popular, but it is that technology is responsible for Americans losing jobs. Americans believe immigrants are the reason for jobs not paying as much as they did before, but I believe technology is reducing the need for all kinds of jobs. Think about autonomous vehicles--when all cars are autonomous, will there really be a need for truck drivers?
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
I'm an economic immigrant- I work and live in a different country (the UK) than the one I was born, and brought up, in (Greece). Immigration is singled out as an issue because of its emotional impact (and that impact is greatly amplified by the political debate that feeds off it). Every other aspect of our common life has the ability to hurt some peoples' bottom line and benefit that of others'. That's politics in a nutshell: when some social condition changes, some groups benefit and some others stand to lose. But then, why is losing out to immigrants more of an issue than losing out to local competition? Why would you be more upset if a foreigner gets your job than if a local does? The issue is that someone else got your job- that's the bit that hurts you. That the person is foreign may be adding insult to injury, but kicking all the bloody foreigners out is not magically going to give you the skills you need to do the job you currently can't. It's not going to make it more profitable for an employer to hire you at a higher wage if you have the skills to do the job, either. A lot more could be achieved on the immigration front if countries spent all that energy towards training their local workforce better. But let's not also forget that when a foreign worker is paid less for more work his or her intersts are also harmed- better enforced labour legislation is to the benefit of all workers. As to the natural effect of prices coming down for all when there's more of a workforce- on the one hand that can be addressed partially by a better trained workforce (which is mroe productive and can therefore afford to ask for better wages). On the other hand, maybe we can agree that once the market for a given skill is saturated, the price of that skill is the closest possible to the true value of the skill.
- r_smart 10y ago
  >why is losing out to immigrants more of an issue than losing out to local competition? The trouble is that the laws, in the US at least, are set up and (not) enforced in such a way as to advantage people coming from abroad. The H1-B is a good example. Employers want H1-Bs because they can lower wages (through job title manipulation and increasing the pool of available workers), while essentially handcuffing the employee to them. This isn't really fair competition. The local employee didn't lose because of being inadequate, they lost because of external forces making it extremely difficult to compete. Personally, I'm all for making legal immigration and naturalization a much easier and faster process, but I also want some of these weird visas done away with. They want to move here, let them come, but don't game the system to the detriment of local workers, and to some extent the immigrant, though they'll likely be living better than where they came from, but not as well as they should be.
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans—why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another. Is it really that clear? I don't doubt that the businesses know which side their bread is buttered, so to speak, but does the majority of low-skilled native workers have the same data, and the ability to draw the same conclusions from it, as the article author? Intuitively, I'd think that the public at large is much less well informed than economists, or businesses even, and that the intensity of the debate is largely due to the inflamed rhetoric on both ends of the issue.
squozzer 10y ago
Sadly the article did not go into more detail about the political constraints affecting immigration policy. "Our immigration policy — any immigration policy — is ultimately not just a statement about how much we care about immigrants, but how much we care about one particular group of natives over another." The pro-amnesty side seems to want more voters, and can advocate such a position without much backlash from their usual allies because their allies are locked in politically. [No backing quote from the article. The reader is free to determine whather my statement holds water.] The status quo side seems to want to suppress wages, and can advocate such a position without much backlash from their usual allies because their allies are locked in politically. "The employers that profit from the way things are won’t go along with [compensating harmed natives] without an epic political struggle."

121 points by simonsarris 10y ago

dang 10y ago

Here's a rare thing, a submission on a classic flamewar topic that is substantive and at least partly grounded in genuine study. We'll try taking the usual penalty off the thread and see what happens. We've also replaced the title with a more neutral sentence from the article. All: if you comment in this thread, please be civil and substantive and avoid political rants. Let's see if HN can reach a higher level than usual.

davidw 10y ago
Borjas is known among economists as one of the few proponents of the theory that immigration does hurt US workers at all. His findings are disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas

thescribe 10y ago

This may be the best article on immigration I have read in a long time. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding, but why don't we use immigration as a knob just like we use interest rates or any other government tool. Too few jobs? Lower the quota. Too many unfilled jobs? Raise the quota. It seems really simple to me.

0verD0ses 10y ago
It's not quite as simple as that. Immigration can in some cases actually create more jobs in the economy, but in other cases doesn't have this effect, so its hard to pinpoint the optimal amount of immigration for economic growth.
- norikki 10y ago
  I would love to see the study that can find a case where immigration creates more jobs than it consumes.
  - jack9 10y ago
    In the farm industry, chicken processing industry, etc. In the 80s, there were buses dedicated to shipping in immigrants to do the manual labor.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    Immigration, almost trivially, increases the size of the economy: more mouths to feed, more people to house, more demand for creature comforts. So, immigration increases jobs. Whether it creates more jobs than it consumes is a bit trickier. My money is on, "yes," but I suppose it will always depend on the details. I would also like to see a study; I'm sure someone must have done one.
    - norikki 10y ago
      The question is really: do you care that there is more wealth overall, or do you care that you personally are better off. Most sane people have no urgent desire to start cramming more people into their neighborhoods. What people want are higher standards of living, not the same or worse standards of living split among more people, even if the overall economy is 'bigger'. Many third world population booms are decimating quality-of-life, especially in places like Nigeria, India, and Brazil. The only people who benefit from a bigger overall population and economy at the expense of individuals being better off, are the people at the very top. They want a bigger pie because then their companies have bigger markets to sell their goods. If it comes at the cost of increasing the population so that everyone else is individually poorer, they don't care. You can't become a billionaire in a country of only 100,000 people. There aren't enough people from whom wealth can be concentrated.
      - goodcanadian 10y ago
        Yes, I read the article, and he does seem to imply that is the case with immigrants at the bottom level of skills. However, he also suggests that the total picture is much more complicated . . . it all depends on the details. My money is still on it being a net gain, overall.
caseysoftware 10y ago
I think one of the differences is that there's the "knob" and then there's the illegal immigration and both have an impact now and well into the future. "Too few jobs" today doesn't mean it will be the same next year or ten years from now. An interest rate change tomorrow will have an immediate impact and shift longer patterns but can be undone or furthered at a later time.. and 10 years from now, it will be lost in the noise.
coldtea 10y ago
>but why don't we use immigration as a knob just like we use interest rates or any other government tool. Too few jobs? Lower the quota. Too many unfilled jobs? Raise the quota. It seems really simple to me. That's exactly what nations do for legal immigration. But for illegal immigration there's no knob. (Well, no pleasant and easily controllable knob).
henrybaxter 10y ago
I believe the author is arguing that, regardless of where you turn the knob (except off), you'll end up with a redistribution of wealth that helps some and hinders others. Put another way: any amount of immigration with current policies will mean more money for immigrants and employers of immigrants, and less money for native workers they are displacing/competing with.
tpeo 10y ago
I'd just like to point out that interest rates are really unlike any other policy instrument. Compare them with other policy instruments (regulations, taxes, social programs, public works) and you'll see that they're more easily changed and create much less hassle among voters. Plus, they have a much more obvious impact in people's pockets and welfare, at least from the viewpoint of the voters.

0verD0ses 10y ago

This is true, but voters are not good at dealing with ambiguity, unlike (some) economists. If politicians muddy their message by focusing too much on the small disadvantages of immigration compared to its large advantages, it will make them look unsure of themselves.

jkot 10y ago

There is also third side in this story; people who jump through hoops to get legal option to work in US. We had to fill mountains of paper work, spend thousands of dollars, wait for years... But every illegal immigrant seems to have more rights than us.

amunicio 10y ago
How does every illegal immigrant have more rights than you? Mind to clarify?
- coldtea 10y ago
  They get to stay in the country, work, some welfare etc, but without having to go through the system in the same bureaucratic way.
  - q75ir082hq 10y ago
    In what way do illegal immigrants get more welfare? I'm aware the some programs are restricted for legal immigrants (pending some waiting period or citizenship), but to my knowledge they are more restricted for those without legal status.
    - norikki 10y ago
      http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-welfare-use-4-11.pdf http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2011/immigrant-w...
    - internaut 10y ago
      I believe jkot is largely referring to opportunity costs.
    - dang 10y ago
      Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.

caseysoftware 10y ago

I think this is the key quote to all of this: "Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program." If you're worried about income inequality and improving the opportunities for people near the bottom, the current system is devastating and only making those situations more pronounced.. which will have an impact for years, if not generations.

merpnderp 10y ago
I'm not sure I get his solution. "...massive new government programs to supervise a massive wealth redistribution totaling tens of billions of dollars" How? Is he thinking that high school dropouts will all of a sudden go back to school? Or just longer unemployment and more welfare, which are unhealthy for people to be on for extended periods.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Probably he is. Retraining is the classical economics answer to the question of a skills mismatch in the population.

feklar 10y ago

Microsoft quote in this article advocating H-1Bs is interesting, as they spent $90M USD to open a research center in Canada in order to avoid H-1Bs. When asked why they didn't expand their Redmond base for the new research center and make use of H-1B visas they gave an answer about 'needing to diversify geographically and reach out to hubs that can offer new talent' which I just read as 'wanting to pay lesser salaries and benefits'.

HarryHirsch 10y ago
Maybe there is much truth in the statement from Microsoft. The standard of living in Canada is not worse than in the US. And Canada's immigration system is point-based - if you meet the criteria (education, age, language &c) the equivalent of a green card is a certainty. In the US, on the other hand, most every job applicant must go through H1-B lottery, which opens up once a year, and it isn't guaranteed that the desired applicant will get a spot.
biocomputation 10y ago
H1-B is a socially destructive program that needs to end. Big companies, in tech and otherwise, use it to keep labor costs down and as another negotiating tool. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! It's funny how all these huge companies that have billions in cash, and who don't pay their fair share of taxes, are always crying poor and wanting more subsidies from someone. H1-B is effectively a subsidy provided by US workers to unfathomably rich, tax-dodging corporations.
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  All H1-B needs is for the superstars who come over (since the employer supposedly can't find qualified US candidates) is to make wages corresponding with that status. Make the minimum pay for an H1-B 140% of the local average for a person at that position, and that market will evaporate overnight. As it should.
  - biocomputation 10y ago

Animats 10y ago

This suggests a path to a solution - a higher minimum wage for immigrants. At the low end, this could be implemented by requiring 2x the minimum wage for anyone whose residency or citizenship hadn't been verified through E-verify. At the high end, we just need tougher enforcement of the H1-B visa pay rules. To make this work, if you've been underpaid as a non-US person, you can file a complaint, and even if you're illegal in the US, that would get you a U visa, which allows up to four years residency. Winning the complaint would get the employee double pay retroactively plus a green card. That would encourage employees to file complaints, and would encourage employers to be much more careful about whom they hire. California could try this on its own, and should.

jomamaxx 10y ago
If you up the minimum wage, employers will just use illegals. Because they can, and competitive market forces will push them into it. The only long term answer is to have responsible, secure borders and reasonable amounts of controlled immigration. There's no need for a special minimum wage for immigrants.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Don't forget harsh punitive penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, penalties which should pierce the corporate veil.
CM30 10y ago
It's a good idea, but there are a few issues that still need ironing out: 1. Quite a few immigrants don't know their rights, or what the minimum wage is. Maybe I'm off the mark here, maybe some documentation you have to sign/read to get your visa mentions it, I don't know. But I suspect in a lot of cases, immigrants are just believing they're being paid a fair wage, and don't bother to find out if they actually are. So that probably needs to be addressed. 2. Quite a few people simply don't care, and hence wouldn't report it. If you've immigrated from a poor enough country, then just about any US wage is far higher than you'd ever get at home. Why rock the boat? And so you'd need to get these people out of said mindset. Or at least, have better ways to check what people are being paid in these roles, even if the actual worker doesn't care.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

norikki 10y ago

>Trump might cite my work, but he overlooks my findings that the influx of immigrants can potentially be a net good for the nation, increasing the total wealth of the population. >The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all.

jack9 10y ago
I don't understand. Potential to increase wealth. Currently the reality is redistribution from the lowest skilled workers to the business owners resulting in a theoretical wash (barely affected total wealth). Yeah, that's one of the points of the article.

internaut 10y ago

Looking at this exclusively from an economic perspective is a strategic mistake. The Irish say it puts the cart before the horse. Migration does not merely bring units of labour or transfers of capital. In fact that is the most benign aspect of this subject. Nobody has a problem with his fellow man looking for his next opportunity, not even the most rabid nationalists I know, and doubtless as NRX I know more than most. The central problem is something that at first appears to have nothing to do with migration. Namely; how is wealth actually created? There are many answers to this question. Nearly all the obvious ones are wrong. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that almost every aid program, every economic structuring program in developing countries has repeatedly failed. I suggest that we don't actually know the answer. Perhaps we do not have all the correct axioms. Perhaps extrapolating from having the correct axioms is just infeasible. We do not know why nations rise or fall. There are just people who pretend to. What we do know is history and the present. In history we know 4 centuries ago English and the Dutch began growing at quite a different trajectory to the others. They were gradually followed by most European states. In the present the most powerful nations on earth are the result of that outgrowth, with the Asian Giants only coming onstream very recently roughly a half century ago. I believe there are two things to take note here. 1. Whatever economic growth is, it doesn't transmit itself parsimoniously via word of mouth. We also know it has nothing to do with education, unbelievable though that may seem, there is ample evidence for this. North Korea is quite literate. The Communists were in general quite well read even as they fucked their countries into the ground. There are many African schools filled with enthusiastic learners (and disappointment when the economy proffers no value to much of this learning). 2. Economic growth is very discriminating. Based on culture. I think of culture as a collective idea network. There is a Occidental culture, there is an Oriental culture. The Occidental one grokked economic growth first, followed by the Japanese, Singporeans, Koreans, Taiwanese and then the Chinese with their SEZ. With the exception of the Japanese, that was very slow... suggesting that there is something... not simple... going on. The Asians after all are often very talented individuals. This is something about the collective. Plainly the cultures that did not grok economic growth at all are the Africans and the Middle Easterners ex Israel. That may be starting to change with Iran but it is early days yet. Having oil is like winning a lottery ticket, the native economies are extremely impoverished and w/o oil... Plainly the 'Protestant Work Ethic' is rot. Economic growth is not native to white people and certainly not a particular religion. Despite that, the cultural explanation makes most sense in light of the economic disparities. The interesting thing is that we know it is culture because of colonization. We know it is in the particular people but not necessarily in the genetics or their education. If you have large numbers of migrants from MENA, places that have not grokked economic growth, then they are bringing a dysfunction with them. They may be carrying a silent burden, a deadly memetic anti-matter, and don't even know it. The individuals may be nice. Non-terrorists. Non-religious even. Friendly and civic minded neighbors. None of that matters if their network, which does not produce economic growth interferes with our network that does. This is the great fear that afflicts nationalists instinctively. Because again, if culture is what drives economic growth, and signs points to yes, then absorbing another culture which does not will lead to lots of little zero sum games, culminating in crime, terrorism and finally in broad conflict. You see it happening in France today, it is gradually but surely turning into a horror show. That is the problem I never see addressed by migration discussions. No, not race, not genes, but the network problem. Economists by the way know all of this. They just choose to call what I'm talking about 'institutions'. They really are spineless. What are institutions but groups of people acting in a certain way, namely; a culture.

Const-me 10y ago

Why is that regulated by federal government at all? Shouldn’t there be different immigration regulations in the Silicon Valley and in e.g. rural Ohio?

usaar333 10y ago
Wouldn't that require having an internal visa system? While some countries do it (China), it's a bit antithetical to having a unified country with a single foreign policy
- Const-me 10y ago
  Currently, if you’ll get a regular L-1 US visa, you’ll only be able to work for the petitioning company. This effectively limits your ability to move. The system works without internal borders within the US. Also look at Canada. Different Canadian provinces have their own immigration programs, with different caps and criteria: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/provincial/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/provincial/
  - klipt 10y ago
    How enforceable is Canada's system? I believe permanent residents have the right to live anywhere in Canada (citizens certainly do), so what's to stop people applying through the easiest province and then moving wherever they want?
    - khuey 10y ago
      Not very. http://www.cknw.com/2016/08/17/quebec-immigrant-investor-program-under-fire-for-pushing-foreign-buyers-to-vancouver/ http://www.cknw.com/2016/08/17/quebec-immigrant-investor-pro...
h4nkoslo 10y ago
That sounds like a great way to ensure that rural Ohioans never have a shot at a job in Silicon Valley.

an_cap 10y ago

The article quantifies the major cost of increased immigration as "the earnings of [high school dropouts] dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year." It describes the benefits to immigrants as "Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated." To take a specific example, maids in India make about $3 a day. If they had the opportunity to move to the US and do similar work at say minimum wage that is at least a 10-fold increase in their earnings. While the cost of living in the US is much higher than in India, its mostly because the quality of life here is much better. Back home she probably lives in a tiny shack in a slum with no running water. If she lived in the US college-dormitory-style, it would be a massive upgrade of her living conditions and still allow her to save money to say give her children a better education. So what we're weighing here is $1000 reduction in the wages of some of the most vulnerable Americans against a life-altering opportunity to the most vulnerable global poor. I don't really see how Borjas (or anyone else) can pick the side of the Americans in this ethical dilemma. Take another example. Say a college educated Indian female decides that she is sick of the sexism in India and wants a better life for herself. Using the large amount of resources online she teaches herself programming and becomes as good as people who graduate from coding bootcamps in the US (so not a stellar programmer but a net positive with proper guidance). Her primary competitive advantage is that she's willing to work harder and for lower wages than the Americans graduating from coding bootcamps. Requiring that she be paid the same (or more as many commenters have suggested) prices her out of the market. So the choice we face is whether we allow her to work as a developer for say $40k a year which she would vastly prefer to being stuck in the shitty circumstances of her birth at the expense of perhaps reducing wages for American programmers from say $70k to $60k a year. Again I don't really see how this is a difficult ethical decision.

throwanem 10y ago
Ten thousand dollars a year would be almost all of what I send home annually to help family members who haven't had my good fortune. For others in my family, a thousand dollars a year would make the difference between being able to get by, if not comfortably, and not being able to get by at all. I feel that perhaps there is some degree of nuance here you've overlooked.
deleted 10y ago

h4nkoslo 10y ago

It would be more possible to take leftist arguments about the benefits of immigration in good faith if they weren't simultaneously crowing about how ongoing immigration will shift US politics permanently to the left. Frankly I don't care if immigration is Good For The Economy. It amounts to intentional population replacement, explicitly aimed at permantly changing the makeup, politics, culture, etc of the country. My children will suffer as a result.

whybroke 10y ago

a fantastic article and wonderful to have a calm conversation on the topic. I can not fault anything in the article but I would add that immigrants also bring dynamism and new ideas to the country. Not necessarily of economic value but certainly of value. For example the relative greater openness and tolerance levels of the cities with larger immigrant populations might have become that way because of their arrival. Obviously I may have confused cause and effect, obviously this may or may not be worth the economic consequences but I think it is worth thinking about.

draugadrotten 10y ago
> For example the relative greater openness and tolerance levels of the cities with larger immigrant populations might have become that way because of their arrival. Looking at European cities with larger immigrant populations, "greater openness and tolerance" isn't exactly what comes to mind to describe the situation.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Seems a bit unfair. Look at cities like London or Zurich. Very high immigrant populations, and the population is comfortable with that.

anotheryou 10y ago

Hm, but no word about humanity. If it might be worth the loss for the benefit of the immigrants coming from even poorer circumstances. This however would still not justify the income shift to the employers, but that could be handled separately.

jasonjei 10y ago

I'm going to state a belief that may not be very popular, but it is that technology is responsible for Americans losing jobs. Americans believe immigrants are the reason for jobs not paying as much as they did before, but I believe technology is reducing the need for all kinds of jobs. Think about autonomous vehicles--when all cars are autonomous, will there really be a need for truck drivers?

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

I'm an economic immigrant- I work and live in a different country (the UK) than the one I was born, and brought up, in (Greece). Immigration is singled out as an issue because of its emotional impact (and that impact is greatly amplified by the political debate that feeds off it). Every other aspect of our common life has the ability to hurt some peoples' bottom line and benefit that of others'. That's politics in a nutshell: when some social condition changes, some groups benefit and some others stand to lose. But then, why is losing out to immigrants more of an issue than losing out to local competition? Why would you be more upset if a foreigner gets your job than if a local does? The issue is that someone else got your job- that's the bit that hurts you. That the person is foreign may be adding insult to injury, but kicking all the bloody foreigners out is not magically going to give you the skills you need to do the job you currently can't. It's not going to make it more profitable for an employer to hire you at a higher wage if you have the skills to do the job, either. A lot more could be achieved on the immigration front if countries spent all that energy towards training their local workforce better. But let's not also forget that when a foreign worker is paid less for more work his or her intersts are also harmed- better enforced labour legislation is to the benefit of all workers. As to the natural effect of prices coming down for all when there's more of a workforce- on the one hand that can be addressed partially by a better trained workforce (which is mroe productive and can therefore afford to ask for better wages). On the other hand, maybe we can agree that once the market for a given skill is saturated, the price of that skill is the closest possible to the true value of the skill.

r_smart 10y ago
>why is losing out to immigrants more of an issue than losing out to local competition? The trouble is that the laws, in the US at least, are set up and (not) enforced in such a way as to advantage people coming from abroad. The H1-B is a good example. Employers want H1-Bs because they can lower wages (through job title manipulation and increasing the pool of available workers), while essentially handcuffing the employee to them. This isn't really fair competition. The local employee didn't lose because of being inadequate, they lost because of external forces making it extremely difficult to compete. Personally, I'm all for making legal immigration and naturalization a much easier and faster process, but I also want some of these weird visas done away with. They want to move here, let them come, but don't game the system to the detriment of local workers, and to some extent the immigrant, though they'll likely be living better than where they came from, but not as well as they should be.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans—why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another. Is it really that clear? I don't doubt that the businesses know which side their bread is buttered, so to speak, but does the majority of low-skilled native workers have the same data, and the ability to draw the same conclusions from it, as the article author? Intuitively, I'd think that the public at large is much less well informed than economists, or businesses even, and that the intensity of the debate is largely due to the inflamed rhetoric on both ends of the issue.

squozzer 10y ago

Sadly the article did not go into more detail about the political constraints affecting immigration policy. "Our immigration policy — any immigration policy — is ultimately not just a statement about how much we care about immigrants, but how much we care about one particular group of natives over another." The pro-amnesty side seems to want more voters, and can advocate such a position without much backlash from their usual allies because their allies are locked in politically. [No backing quote from the article. The reader is free to determine whather my statement holds water.] The status quo side seems to want to suppress wages, and can advocate such a position without much backlash from their usual allies because their allies are locked in politically. "The employers that profit from the way things are won’t go along with [compensating harmed natives] without an epic political struggle."