7 ms·

The article doesn't mention immigration even in passing. Sure, there's globalization and improvements in technology but there are also millions of people increa

by blfr 12y ago

The article doesn't mention immigration even in passing. Sure, there's globalization and improvements in technology but there are also millions of people increasing the supply of labour, especially for jobs that don't require much skill or certification.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Is there a corresponding increase in immigration over time? As far as I know (in my lifetime) there have always been migrant laborers.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > Is there a corresponding increase in immigration over time? Yes. The both the number and percentage of immigrants have doubled since 1990. I'm pro immigration, but it's odd that we aren't even talking about how immigration affects job prospects, especially given the dismal wages across the board.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    I'd like to see some credible data showing that.
    - panglott 12y ago
      Interesting, there seems to be some truth to this. I've known that immigration was a major cause of US population growth. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/15-immigrant-workers-singer#3 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/15-immigran... The premise of the main article, though, is that the major impact of globalization has been the decline in higher-wage sectors such as manufacturing, wheres immigrants are competing more in lower-wage sectors.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    Who is the "we" that isn't talking about it?
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      I was trying to be inclusive, but in particular, I'm talking about the NYT article that was posted.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    That's a pretty gross statistic. I don't have the reference handy but as I recall if you graph wage growth vs immigration on an annual or more granular basis, there is no significant correlation.
humanrebar 12y ago
And it doesn't mention that even the most educated workers are not keeping pace with real GDP growth. The analysis basically books down to "supply exceeds demand, uneducated hardest hit". I would have liked to see more analysis on the ultimate reason for the lack of demand for workers. Finally, it bugs me when people blame technology for destroying jobs and not society, employees, and employers for thinking simple, repetitive jobs are viable long-term career paths. Distilled to absurdity, we could pay people to dig holes and refill them, but robots will always be orders of magnitude better at that. Why blame the robot and not everyone else for not realizing hole-digger is a job with an expiration date?
- RobertoG 12y ago
  What are the jobs without an expiration date? It's always funny how when these kinds of questions arise in HN a lot of people is worried about what are "we" going to do with "them" when "we" have not works for "them". (not talking about the parent here, by the way)
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    All jobs have expiration dates unless you're independently wealthy. That's why, for decades, commencement addresses have repeated factoids about the inevitability of career change. It doesn't make sense, then, to stand around and grumble about how the robots are messing everything up. Instead, we need to develop productive advice and attitudes about being creators that use all this automation to do even greater things.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Reasons for lack of demand: -phase lag: It takes a while for the economy to find uses for increased labour. -Until the above is fixed: Unbalanced levels of education: The economy requires x amount of elementary graduates per y amount of high school graduates per z amount of university graduates. Mostly unskilled immigrants don't come in these ratios and therefore introduces imbalance, meaning there's a surplus of unskilled workers
- normloman 12y ago
briandear 12y ago
The NY Times wouldn't mention immigration because that would harm the Ehite House narrative about how 'good' it will be to open the borders and provide amnesty. The people that are most conditioned to vote democrat (the poor) are the ones who are ultimately harmed the most from increasing immigration and reducing deportations. However by increasing immigration, presumably the Democrats think that they will add enough votes to offset the potential loss of votes from the existing American lower classes who are most profoundly harmed by illegal immigration and the so-called 'path to citizenship.' In terms of immigration policy, one might want to ask oneself why tech companies want to increase H1s; why people like Zuckerberg care about the immigration issue at all. It isn't because of some altruism. More immigrants mean declining labor costs. This article exposes the canary of the lower wage segments, however a similar pattern will eventually emerge in the higher wage fields as well.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  >The NY Times wouldn't mention immigration because that would harm the Ehite House narrative about how 'good' it will be to open the borders and provide amnesty. I didn't realize the NY Times was an operative of the Obama administration...
  - DamnYuppie 12y ago
    An operative makes it sound like they are under the thumb of the administration. Which I doubt to be accurate, yet I would say they are co-conspirators who share the same left wing agenda.
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      OK... This left wing agenda thing must be new with the NY Times. It sure looked like they were "co-conspirators" with the Bush administration when they refused or didn't bother to investigate the administrations claims about weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly had... They were practically promoting another war with Iraq.
      - 12y ago
twoodfin 12y ago
I agree it's a glaring oversight, but I don't think it's a supply/demand effect so much as a demographic shift: I'd bet that the group of American working men ages 30-45 without a high school diploma now tilts much more heavily first-generation immigrant than it did in 1990. The percentage of native born Americans with high school diplomas has risen pretty consistently over that period, and immigrants as a % of the population has been spiking since 1970, rising from 8% to 13% from 1990-2013.[1] As the Census Bureau pointed out in 2003: The percentage of the foreign born with a high school diploma (67 percent) was dramatically lower than that of the native population (88 percent), but paradoxically, the percentage with a bachelor's degree was the same (27 percent).[2] I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that first generation immigrants may have less remunerative employment opportunities than native born citizens, regardless of their education level, but particularly without a high school diploma. [1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immi... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#Foreign_born_.26_Immigrants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_U...
adjwilli 12y ago
And it doesn't mention civil rights or feminism either. There may be various cultural phenomenons that play a part in increasing the labor supply, but enforcing barriers to entry disregards the dignity of people. The fact is, if you want to be materially successful in life you have to compete (at least in some way) with everyone you share the Earth with. You can't stop immigration any more than you can stop oppressed people from wanting to be free. The point of the article is though to remind us educated NYTimes readers that while we might be sitting pretty, there are certain classes of society who are getting left behind.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The fact that lowering barriers to entry (by people unfortunate enough to be born black, female or foreign) is a normative good does not mean that an article should ignore them - they are still possible positive causes of low income workers "getting hammered". If they are a primary cause, then the correct response is just to accept that good things may have tradeoffs.
- mc32 12y ago
  Curiously the media typically are against immigration of the professional classes, think doctors, lawyers, journalists, accountants, etc. but typically are in favor of uneducated immigration -now industry wants both because it makes the labor supply cheaper, activists typically only look after the uneducated immigrant pool and hardly care about fighting for immigrant professionals. As an aside, Japan but not Britain does a "good" job at limiting immigration despite the great need for it within their economy. Their bet is that the pain to their economy is worth the stability of their society. I suppose we shall see who has the better answer an open economy like the UK or a closed labor economy like Japan. Also, this not a phenomenon unique to rich western countries, south Africa, Nigeria, Kenya are also very keen on protecting their own labor markets from immigrant classes. There is a protectionist aspect but its not racial in nature. Look at the Mexican motto "Mexico for Mexicans" and how other Hispanics are unfavored in their economy. Imagine a European country having a similar motto...
  - caseysoftware 12y ago

by blfr 12y ago

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

Is there a corresponding increase in immigration over time? As far as I know (in my lifetime) there have always been migrant laborers.

humanrebar 12y ago
> Is there a corresponding increase in immigration over time? Yes. The both the number and percentage of immigrants have doubled since 1990. I'm pro immigration, but it's odd that we aren't even talking about how immigration affects job prospects, especially given the dismal wages across the board.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  I'd like to see some credible data showing that.
  - panglott 12y ago
    Interesting, there seems to be some truth to this. I've known that immigration was a major cause of US population growth. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/15-immigrant-workers-singer#3 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/15-immigran... The premise of the main article, though, is that the major impact of globalization has been the decline in higher-wage sectors such as manufacturing, wheres immigrants are competing more in lower-wage sectors.
- afarrell 12y ago
  Who is the "we" that isn't talking about it?
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    I was trying to be inclusive, but in particular, I'm talking about the NYT article that was posted.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  That's a pretty gross statistic. I don't have the reference handy but as I recall if you graph wage growth vs immigration on an annual or more granular basis, there is no significant correlation.

humanrebar 12y ago

And it doesn't mention that even the most educated workers are not keeping pace with real GDP growth. The analysis basically books down to "supply exceeds demand, uneducated hardest hit". I would have liked to see more analysis on the ultimate reason for the lack of demand for workers. Finally, it bugs me when people blame technology for destroying jobs and not society, employees, and employers for thinking simple, repetitive jobs are viable long-term career paths. Distilled to absurdity, we could pay people to dig holes and refill them, but robots will always be orders of magnitude better at that. Why blame the robot and not everyone else for not realizing hole-digger is a job with an expiration date?

RobertoG 12y ago
What are the jobs without an expiration date? It's always funny how when these kinds of questions arise in HN a lot of people is worried about what are "we" going to do with "them" when "we" have not works for "them". (not talking about the parent here, by the way)
- humanrebar 12y ago
  All jobs have expiration dates unless you're independently wealthy. That's why, for decades, commencement addresses have repeated factoids about the inevitability of career change. It doesn't make sense, then, to stand around and grumble about how the robots are messing everything up. Instead, we need to develop productive advice and attitudes about being creators that use all this automation to do even greater things.
tormeh 12y ago
Reasons for lack of demand: -phase lag: It takes a while for the economy to find uses for increased labour. -Until the above is fixed: Unbalanced levels of education: The economy requires x amount of elementary graduates per y amount of high school graduates per z amount of university graduates. Mostly unskilled immigrants don't come in these ratios and therefore introduces imbalance, meaning there's a surplus of unskilled workers
normloman 12y ago

briandear 12y ago

The NY Times wouldn't mention immigration because that would harm the Ehite House narrative about how 'good' it will be to open the borders and provide amnesty. The people that are most conditioned to vote democrat (the poor) are the ones who are ultimately harmed the most from increasing immigration and reducing deportations. However by increasing immigration, presumably the Democrats think that they will add enough votes to offset the potential loss of votes from the existing American lower classes who are most profoundly harmed by illegal immigration and the so-called 'path to citizenship.' In terms of immigration policy, one might want to ask oneself why tech companies want to increase H1s; why people like Zuckerberg care about the immigration issue at all. It isn't because of some altruism. More immigrants mean declining labor costs. This article exposes the canary of the lower wage segments, however a similar pattern will eventually emerge in the higher wage fields as well.

01Michael10 12y ago
>The NY Times wouldn't mention immigration because that would harm the Ehite House narrative about how 'good' it will be to open the borders and provide amnesty. I didn't realize the NY Times was an operative of the Obama administration...
- DamnYuppie 12y ago
  An operative makes it sound like they are under the thumb of the administration. Which I doubt to be accurate, yet I would say they are co-conspirators who share the same left wing agenda.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    OK... This left wing agenda thing must be new with the NY Times. It sure looked like they were "co-conspirators" with the Bush administration when they refused or didn't bother to investigate the administrations claims about weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly had... They were practically promoting another war with Iraq.
    - 12y ago

twoodfin 12y ago

I agree it's a glaring oversight, but I don't think it's a supply/demand effect so much as a demographic shift: I'd bet that the group of American working men ages 30-45 without a high school diploma now tilts much more heavily first-generation immigrant than it did in 1990. The percentage of native born Americans with high school diplomas has risen pretty consistently over that period, and immigrants as a % of the population has been spiking since 1970, rising from 8% to 13% from 1990-2013.[1] As the Census Bureau pointed out in 2003: The percentage of the foreign born with a high school diploma (67 percent) was dramatically lower than that of the native population (88 percent), but paradoxically, the percentage with a bachelor's degree was the same (27 percent).[2] I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that first generation immigrants may have less remunerative employment opportunities than native born citizens, regardless of their education level, but particularly without a high school diploma. [1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immi... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#Foreign_born_.26_Immigrants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_U...

adjwilli 12y ago

And it doesn't mention civil rights or feminism either. There may be various cultural phenomenons that play a part in increasing the labor supply, but enforcing barriers to entry disregards the dignity of people. The fact is, if you want to be materially successful in life you have to compete (at least in some way) with everyone you share the Earth with. You can't stop immigration any more than you can stop oppressed people from wanting to be free. The point of the article is though to remind us educated NYTimes readers that while we might be sitting pretty, there are certain classes of society who are getting left behind.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
The fact that lowering barriers to entry (by people unfortunate enough to be born black, female or foreign) is a normative good does not mean that an article should ignore them - they are still possible positive causes of low income workers "getting hammered". If they are a primary cause, then the correct response is just to accept that good things may have tradeoffs.
mc32 12y ago
Curiously the media typically are against immigration of the professional classes, think doctors, lawyers, journalists, accountants, etc. but typically are in favor of uneducated immigration -now industry wants both because it makes the labor supply cheaper, activists typically only look after the uneducated immigrant pool and hardly care about fighting for immigrant professionals. As an aside, Japan but not Britain does a "good" job at limiting immigration despite the great need for it within their economy. Their bet is that the pain to their economy is worth the stability of their society. I suppose we shall see who has the better answer an open economy like the UK or a closed labor economy like Japan. Also, this not a phenomenon unique to rich western countries, south Africa, Nigeria, Kenya are also very keen on protecting their own labor markets from immigrant classes. There is a protectionist aspect but its not racial in nature. Look at the Mexican motto "Mexico for Mexicans" and how other Hispanics are unfavored in their economy. Imagine a European country having a similar motto...
- caseysoftware 12y ago