Posted on 04/17/2006 11:07:47 PM PDT by Plutarch
What happens when immigrants enter the labor market?
----------------snip-----------------------
The results are that, in the short run -- holding all other things equal -- immigration lowered the wage of native workers, particularly of those workers with the least education. The wage fell by 3% for the average worker and by 8% for high school dropouts.
These effects imply sizable reductions in annual earnings for low-skill workers. In 2000, the typical high school dropout earned $25,000, so that immigration reduced his earnings by $1,200, even after all capital adjustments take place...We found that Mexican immigration, which is predominantly low-skill, accounts for all of the adverse impact of immigration on low-skill natives....the wage losses suffered by workers show up as higher profits to employers and, eventually, as lower prices to consumers. Immigration policy is just another redistribution program. In the short run, it transfers wealth from one group (workers) to another (employers). Whether or not such transfers are desirable is one of the central questions in the immigration debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I was shocked as hell to see this article in today's WSJ.
Something actually acknowledging that illegal immigration is reverse Robin Hood economics.
Are they wondering why their pro-illegal boostering is falling on deaf ears ? Are they wondering that their policies are marching the GOP over a cliff ?
After all, the Bush administration's policy is political idiocy of the highest order. Only a president with strong bipartisan support can afford to piss off his base on an issue it feels very strongly about. And Iraq has cost Bush all bipartisan support. When the other party is dizzy with hatred for you why betray and demoralize your dwindling band of defenders ?
So you are going to tell Joe Sixpack that glutting the labor market has no effect on wages ? You are cite reams of bogus statistics to 'prove' to Joe Sixpack that he is wrong about what he sees happenning in his life and the lives of people he knows ?
That sure is a political winner.
Not really. The WSJ is using Borjas to reaffirm that illegals help transfer billions of dollars from lowly hicks to WSJ readers. The WSJ says: "See, illegals are good for us!"
In the days since this article appeared on the editorial page of the WSJ, no less, I have been waiting for the WSJ to emerge with an editorial explaining how low income American workers actually benefit from 'wage restraint' and how glutting a labor market really has no effect on the price of labor.
None has appeared so far.
Has the WSJ realized that when elites behave like pigs the response is populism ? That a populist third party on immigration and trade could actually emerge on this issue ? Have they realized that shafting Joe Sixpack is a political non starter and this simply will not stand ?
You hardly need a populist outbreak to make illegals a political disaster. You need only their warm voting bodies to effect the political ruination of populous states such as The Golden one.
The WSJ's political horizons do not extend past the next quarter. Finding illegals profitable NOW, their political analysis labors are finished.
Unemployment is at 4.7%.
Do we have to go through this again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.