5 ms·

It's certainly true that immigration has a positive effect on GDP, at least in the short term, and in the long term depending on other circumstances, but that d

It's certainly true that immigration has a positive effect on GDP, at least in the short term, and in the long term depending on other circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone or even most people in the country. We are not paid as a percentage of GDP. It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. And that is only to speak of their short term interests. It is almost certainly not in the long term interests of the majority of the people in a country to import large numbers of people who fail, for whatever reason, to fully assimilate into the country, especially if there is a democratic system of government, where identity politics can take hold and corrode the government in addition to the damage done to the social fabric. >You could arguably increase the salaries of american citizens by banning by penalty of death any kind of importation Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. That seems a bit over the top. Can't they just make people pay money for bringing those things in, instead of killing them?

conanbatt 7y ago
> It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. It reduces rent-seeking but it increases the value-wages of everyone else. It is true that if you are to personally hold a monopoly for all the software engineering possible to be consumed in the US your wages would go through the moon, and if that monopoly were broken your wages would go down. But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident: less software products would be made, meaning the entire society takes a hit. A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. > Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. It used to -> > By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3, the exporter of sheep, lambs, or rams, was for the first offence, to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town, upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence, to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade, not to the brutality of the measures. The benefits of Free trade are not up to debate in the economics field. Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost?
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >the value-wages of everyone else. Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. >But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. >A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. >It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. Please elaborate. >It used to -> OK, but, like, it doesn't any more. >Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade Better for everyone that's still trading, I guess. >Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost? I'm not sure about me, personally. I've done fairly well in the economy we have. The people in, say, Appalachia, who are killing themselves or addicted to drugs, are probably not as well off as they would be if we had employed economic protectionism to their benefit, even if their smartphones cost more. In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind, and that those people are going to be raised by people that are not suffering from the effects of poverty or from lacking any meaning in their lives. It doesn't do much good for my posterity if the people with which they share a country see them as an economic resource to squeeze for whatever they're worth because they have no common bonds of shared history or culture that tie them together, or if those people are damaged from being raised in squalor. I believe we need to put our communities above our GDP for a while.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    > Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. Software engineers are the the high-skilled jobs being protected by H1B caps, you know, the top 10% income in the country. > OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. I've made an argument in kind, this is an argument of degree. I'll answer in degree: its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. If it were to suppress wages a lot, its because the monopoly was very strong. Monopoly power does not require having a single actor, it can happen with many. A good example is medicine: no doctor in the world that is board certified can provide medical care in the united states. Only a small subset of doctors in the world can: american doctors certified by american institutions. The result is that doctors outside the US are willing to provide top level care at 10~20U$S an hour, while they do so at 10-20x in the US. The result is also evident: medical care is extremely expensive in the US. > Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. It is to the employer: they are unable to buy from someone else. There is no big difference between making it illegal to import cars, and give a monopoly to american car companies than to make it illegal to bring foreign car workers. The result is that the cost of manufacture rises for everyone. When you import anything from outside, you are also importing the labor: untaxed, unfettered, sometimes illegal labor. IF you were to bring the worker from the other country into the US, the US would enjoy higher tax revenues and have the exact same GDP (ceteris paribus). Countries were people leave enter a spiral of misery, countries were people enter have the exact opposite effect! > In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind I believe you believe this, but I also believe you don't. Ban any foreign product from your consumption today and you will see why: everything would turn insanely expensive and inconvenient. In any case, I reiterate that your model of how an economy can prosper with protectionism is only in the rhetoric of politicians and in the real of climate denialism or flat-earthers. It just not whats observable. The freedom of trade is almost 1-1 correlated to country prosperity around the world, and the most miserable countries are the protectionists ones.

conanbatt 7y ago

> It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. It reduces rent-seeking but it increases the value-wages of everyone else. It is true that if you are to personally hold a monopoly for all the software engineering possible to be consumed in the US your wages would go through the moon, and if that monopoly were broken your wages would go down. But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident: less software products would be made, meaning the entire society takes a hit. A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. > Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. It used to -> > By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3, the exporter of sheep, lambs, or rams, was for the first offence, to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town, upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence, to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade, not to the brutality of the measures. The benefits of Free trade are not up to debate in the economics field. Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>the value-wages of everyone else. Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. >But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. >A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. >It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. Please elaborate. >It used to -> OK, but, like, it doesn't any more. >Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade Better for everyone that's still trading, I guess. >Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost? I'm not sure about me, personally. I've done fairly well in the economy we have. The people in, say, Appalachia, who are killing themselves or addicted to drugs, are probably not as well off as they would be if we had employed economic protectionism to their benefit, even if their smartphones cost more. In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind, and that those people are going to be raised by people that are not suffering from the effects of poverty or from lacking any meaning in their lives. It doesn't do much good for my posterity if the people with which they share a country see them as an economic resource to squeeze for whatever they're worth because they have no common bonds of shared history or culture that tie them together, or if those people are damaged from being raised in squalor. I believe we need to put our communities above our GDP for a while.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. Software engineers are the the high-skilled jobs being protected by H1B caps, you know, the top 10% income in the country. > OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. I've made an argument in kind, this is an argument of degree. I'll answer in degree: its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. If it were to suppress wages a lot, its because the monopoly was very strong. Monopoly power does not require having a single actor, it can happen with many. A good example is medicine: no doctor in the world that is board certified can provide medical care in the united states. Only a small subset of doctors in the world can: american doctors certified by american institutions. The result is that doctors outside the US are willing to provide top level care at 10~20U$S an hour, while they do so at 10-20x in the US. The result is also evident: medical care is extremely expensive in the US. > Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. It is to the employer: they are unable to buy from someone else. There is no big difference between making it illegal to import cars, and give a monopoly to american car companies than to make it illegal to bring foreign car workers. The result is that the cost of manufacture rises for everyone. When you import anything from outside, you are also importing the labor: untaxed, unfettered, sometimes illegal labor. IF you were to bring the worker from the other country into the US, the US would enjoy higher tax revenues and have the exact same GDP (ceteris paribus). Countries were people leave enter a spiral of misery, countries were people enter have the exact opposite effect! > In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind I believe you believe this, but I also believe you don't. Ban any foreign product from your consumption today and you will see why: everything would turn insanely expensive and inconvenient. In any case, I reiterate that your model of how an economy can prosper with protectionism is only in the rhetoric of politicians and in the real of climate denialism or flat-earthers. It just not whats observable. The freedom of trade is almost 1-1 correlated to country prosperity around the world, and the most miserable countries are the protectionists ones.