4 ms·

> "Evidence is that the vast majority of immigrant labor, both skilled and unskilled, are net positives economically." Since this is a forum with a lot of engi

> "Evidence is that the vast majority of immigrant labor, both skilled and unskilled, are net positives economically." Since this is a forum with a lot of engineers I would expect people to do their research instead of simply making statements. Exporting labor to cheaper countries (primarily China and Mexico) and importing cheap labor (through both legal and illegal immigration from low-income countries such as Mexico) and STEM imports through H1-B Visa abuses depresses wages for the working class in the former situation and among highly skilled professionals in the later. There is a term for this: global labor arbitrage Of course, there is a number of working class jobs replaced by automation, but in spite of automation, global labor arbitrage still exists as an independent phenomena to depress wages. In 2001 China joined the World Trade Org (WTO) but "did not play by the rules." with the result that many Americans in working class jobs lost those jobs or ended up receiving depressed wage rates. NAFTA has been an issue with Mexico. The H1-B Visa abuse has been substantial with a number of organizations importing H1-B Visa labor to replace Americans (e.g. Disney, Southern CA Edison, UC San Francisco,...). Trump has been working to stop illegal immigration as well as stemming H1-B Visa abuse. A result is that there are "labor shortages" resulting in a rising wage rate. Another major factor impacting wage growth has been the increasing costs of healthcare which is generally paid for by employers. Higher benefits costs result in lower wages. BTW, there are some companies that complain that they can't find workers but generally that is because 1) they are not offering market level wages and 2) they are not located in a place where people want to live. Generally, these firms, if they are willing to locate where people want to live and if they offer market wages, they will be able to find employees.

mavelikara 7y ago
> Generally, these firms, if they are willing to locate where people want to live and if they offer market wages, they will be able to find employees. This is a conjecture you put forward. It is on the same lines of let-them-eat-cake as: > Generally, these workers, if they are willing to work hard and raise their skills, they will be able to increase their wages.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Well both statements are true. It's just that a lot of foreign workers start from a much smaller base and therefore are happy with wages that are unsustainable for natives.
astazangasta 7y ago
>Trump has been working to stop illegal immigration as well as stemming H1-B Visa abuse. A result is that there are "labor shortages" resulting in a rising wage rate. Sorry, but what evidence do you have that anything Trump has done has produced this result? Or even that this is the result of stemming immigration and not, say, steadily increasing demand in the economy? In regards to the illegal immigration, other than the small bump due to people fleeing violence associated with Honduras, illegal immigration has been at a multi-decade low. Trump talks about it a lot, but this was already a substantially smaller contributor to labor markets when he came into office. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has been dropping quite steadily over the past decade - it didn't adjust dramatically as a result of some Trump-related policy. This is entirely the result of the end of the Great Recession, which kicked up unemployment by a huge percentage around the world. It's now basically recovered to its pre-recession levels. A decade of GDP growth is also bringing aggregate demand where it used to be. These systemic factors seem much more likely to me to be responsible for this tight labor market than any kind of fiddling with immigration policy, whose effects would take years to feel if they could even produce this kind of change.
- davidf18 7y ago
  > "but what evidence do you have that anything Trump has done..." Naturally, difficult to demonstrate causality and certainly some of the tightening of labor comes from economic growth, but Trump has been careful to do away with H1-B Visa abuse, looking into having firms offer salaries above US rates. Trump is also increasing enforcement of raiding firms for illegal alien employment. Trump is getting rid of the H4 Visa program which Obama invented instead of passing it through Congress which helped spouses of H1-B workers to take jobs intended for Americans or others who have a legal right to work here. I think that number alone is 100,000. Trump has reestablished a program that helps employers to check if workers are using fraudulent or stolen SSNs that Obama had stopped. Obama stopped the program apparently so to make it easier for firms to hire illegal aliens. > "illegal immigration has been at a multi-decade low." I'm not certain that that is true, I've been reading that the border is being rushed (in NYTimes). But you're discussing the are of illegal immigrants coming into the country and not discussing the very large number of illegal immigrants already living here. By enforcing laws that keep illegal aliens from working here, Trump is helping to tighten the labor market leading to increased wages for the working class. In 1970 there was about 5% of the US population that were immigrants and that number has progressively grown to 14%. Had the immigration rate remained stable at the 1970 levels there undoubtedly would be far higher wages for the working class. I'm not against immigrants, but against illegal aliens. Probably restoring immigration to 1970 levels or a bit higher would restore some stability in long-term working class employment and wages. As for unemployment rates, these rates are notoriously underreporting and don't report certain categories and geographical locations which are suffering from unemployment and underemployment. For example, GM is laying off 14,000 workers. Will they quickly be able to find jobs with comparable compensation? That would be an interesting study and I'm guessing the answer is no.

mavelikara 7y ago

> Generally, these firms, if they are willing to locate where people want to live and if they offer market wages, they will be able to find employees. This is a conjecture you put forward. It is on the same lines of let-them-eat-cake as: > Generally, these workers, if they are willing to work hard and raise their skills, they will be able to increase their wages.

imtringued 7y ago
Well both statements are true. It's just that a lot of foreign workers start from a much smaller base and therefore are happy with wages that are unsustainable for natives.

astazangasta 7y ago

>Trump has been working to stop illegal immigration as well as stemming H1-B Visa abuse. A result is that there are "labor shortages" resulting in a rising wage rate. Sorry, but what evidence do you have that anything Trump has done has produced this result? Or even that this is the result of stemming immigration and not, say, steadily increasing demand in the economy? In regards to the illegal immigration, other than the small bump due to people fleeing violence associated with Honduras, illegal immigration has been at a multi-decade low. Trump talks about it a lot, but this was already a substantially smaller contributor to labor markets when he came into office. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has been dropping quite steadily over the past decade - it didn't adjust dramatically as a result of some Trump-related policy. This is entirely the result of the end of the Great Recession, which kicked up unemployment by a huge percentage around the world. It's now basically recovered to its pre-recession levels. A decade of GDP growth is also bringing aggregate demand where it used to be. These systemic factors seem much more likely to me to be responsible for this tight labor market than any kind of fiddling with immigration policy, whose effects would take years to feel if they could even produce this kind of change.

davidf18 7y ago
> "but what evidence do you have that anything Trump has done..." Naturally, difficult to demonstrate causality and certainly some of the tightening of labor comes from economic growth, but Trump has been careful to do away with H1-B Visa abuse, looking into having firms offer salaries above US rates. Trump is also increasing enforcement of raiding firms for illegal alien employment. Trump is getting rid of the H4 Visa program which Obama invented instead of passing it through Congress which helped spouses of H1-B workers to take jobs intended for Americans or others who have a legal right to work here. I think that number alone is 100,000. Trump has reestablished a program that helps employers to check if workers are using fraudulent or stolen SSNs that Obama had stopped. Obama stopped the program apparently so to make it easier for firms to hire illegal aliens. > "illegal immigration has been at a multi-decade low." I'm not certain that that is true, I've been reading that the border is being rushed (in NYTimes). But you're discussing the are of illegal immigrants coming into the country and not discussing the very large number of illegal immigrants already living here. By enforcing laws that keep illegal aliens from working here, Trump is helping to tighten the labor market leading to increased wages for the working class. In 1970 there was about 5% of the US population that were immigrants and that number has progressively grown to 14%. Had the immigration rate remained stable at the 1970 levels there undoubtedly would be far higher wages for the working class. I'm not against immigrants, but against illegal aliens. Probably restoring immigration to 1970 levels or a bit higher would restore some stability in long-term working class employment and wages. As for unemployment rates, these rates are notoriously underreporting and don't report certain categories and geographical locations which are suffering from unemployment and underemployment. For example, GM is laying off 14,000 workers. Will they quickly be able to find jobs with comparable compensation? That would be an interesting study and I'm guessing the answer is no.