Posted on 05/01/2006 8:28:35 AM PDT by blueberry12
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say, though some low-skilled workers have been hurt.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - In the heated debate over the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy, Andrew Sum is one of those focusing on the negative.
The economist - the director of labor market studies at Northeastern University in Boston - argues that the large supply of immigrants has displaced low-skilled U.S.-born workers, particularly the young and the poor, from jobs.
"About 85.5 of every 100 new workers are new immigrants in this decade," he said. "At no time in the last 60 years have we come close to this. They're really displacing young workers at a very high rate."
But even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence.
"Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants. And in the last few years our growth would have been slower. The only thing I've argued is that we've ignored that illegal immigration has put a lot of young adults into economic jeopardy."
Sum's views point out the dichotomy that many economists see when looking at the impact of immigration on the economy.
Few economists will argue with the concept that the economy is stronger for the presence of the low-cost labor force.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
So you judge my intelligence by how I feel about immigrants? That seems fair. I have a job that I like and don't feel the least bit threatened by immigrants. I have immigrant neighbors and don't feel the least bit threatened by them. Maybe you are just a little paranoid.
" the more people we have in the country working, the better it is going to be for all of us."
So, you think that if we were to quickly import 500 million Chinese, 500 million Indians, and 500 million Africans it would be a "good deal" for the average, middle-class American ?
In 1997, the National Research Council published what is generally viewed as the seminal study on the influence of immigration on the overall economy. It is often cited by both sides in the immigration debate. The Council found that immigration has a net positive benefit to the United States economy of about $10-billion a year. But the report was quick to point out that relative to the $10-trillion U.S. economy, that benefit is relatively small. Ultimately the immigration debate will be decided on more than simple economic terms.
----------
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
----------
Most economists agree: Whether it helps or hurts, immigration's effect on the U.S. economy is small. There simply aren't enough immigrants to make a dent.
Methinks you've got the right of it.
The rationalization going on this thread is absolutely torturous. There is little more repugnant than scum trying to justify its existence.
Well, what about it, BB12? What do you say to the `situational ethics' quandary I posed to you: that if the law is just too onerous or confusing or unfair--why, you say, just break it.
I wonder if that defense would work for me with the IRS or a traffic cop. `Gee officer, I know the light was red but there wasn't anyone coming in either direction . . . '
You `enlightened' folks `name-calling' the law-abiding--I just saw another one from another apologist for illegal aliens: "paranoid", well, it's just pure mentira, gringa.
"The rationalization going on this thread is absolutely torturous. There is little more repugnant than scum trying to justify its existence."
I know, I've blown BB out of the water numerous times and it's actually like shootin' fish in a barrel.
This is why we need to expand the guest worker program. Companies that do the RIGHT thing shouldn't have to compete against companies that are cheating and hiring illegals -- who have lower costs, and might be even MORE motivated because they are afraid of being caught.
Those "lazy americans" who won't do these jobs are going to have to work somewhere, or be unemployed the rest of their lives.
But they can't get these low-paying, entry-level jobs because the more skilled mexicans come here and take the jobs for less money.
Hey, the south's economy did really well when we had slavery. Exploitation of illegals is almost the same, except that they volunteer for duty.
You sound like one of those old time Commie slogan slingers.
And what about the integrity of the country that provides the framework in which your business operates.? You just let it go to hell while you get all those nice little illegal workers that allow you to skirt the laws of the country that provides the infrastructure you covet. You will eventually pay the piper and you KNOW it
What you are advocating is special privileges for employers who do not abide by the labor market.
Why should employers be insulated from paying what legal American workers have determined to be an appropriate wage and working condition for a give job just because that employer doesn't agree with said determination?
" Companies that do the RIGHT thing shouldn't have to compete against companies that are cheating and hiring illegals -...."
Thank GOD someone finally gets it.
No problem, with your arguement oil companies shouldn't be allowed to drill in ANWR either, see where your arbitrary standards get you, instaed of letting the market work it's magic.
Yes, you have, but BB keeps coming back.
That's pretty sound evidence BB is not bothering with discussion: he's campaigning. Might not be a bad idea to ping a Mod.
And the south's economy is also doing much better today than the midwest's or the northeast's because of current right to work laws.
I guess you want those abolished also.
That comment on displacing low-skilled American workers is a good example of the nasty social Darwinism prevalent among many libertarians and conservatives today, the same people who have the hypocrisy and nerve to whine about leftist class warfare. How is it justice? Would it still be justice if you were displaced?
With the difference between the two things being--and a significant one at that--that Congress decides where and whether to drill for oil, while USC Title 8 (`black-letter law') makes the presence of unauthorized Mexican nationals in our country illegal.
We need oil while we have plenty of lawbreakers, thank you very much. And thanks for helping to clear that up/
I actually am on the side of business, but no on the side of the taxed2death economic central committee politburo of micromanagement of business.
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.