Thank you for apologizing because it does trigger me. I will not click that link.Good choice.
It might tempt you to consider evidence and that might be a gateway to thinking in general.
Then you would lose all your echo-chamber little friends.lol. As if. Nice to see we're bringing up strawmen now.
Hit a little too close to home? : )
There are 100 low-skilled jobs, Americans demand $8 per hour to do them. Then 50 undocumented people arrive who are happy to do the jobs for $5 per hour. They don't pay income taxes so their net income is not really that different than an American who would do the job.
So in summary:
- avg wage down
- unemployment or encouraged workers up
- gov't revenue down
which part of this is hard for you to understand?
Hello yes I am having trouble understanding the part where you say “There are 100 low skill jobs.”
Which economic model implies there is a fixed quantity of jobs in equilibrium in the medium run?
Immigrants are willing to do the filthy jobs that locals don't want to do in every developed country that I've lived in/visited. If there is a labor shortage for low-skilled jobs, it's likely the elasticity of supply for locals is very large. Heck, most people just don't want to work at burger king. The only people with low elasticity are teenagers and foreigners, so I don't see the problem with letting them in.
It’s this, plus immigrants contribute to both demand and supply for labor (i.e. they buy stuff too). Like I get Duflo is liberal, but to pretend she doesn’t know basic econ concepts we teach our undergrads is silly. Yes, she knows that at exogenous supply shock pushes price down, but that’s not all immigrants do.
Think of it as increasing g in a Solow growth model. Do we really think that’s catastrophic? (Obviously there are plenty of cultural and otherwise non-economic reasons people could have that would lead them to oppose greater immigration, but that’s a different issue).
There are 100 low-skilled jobs, Americans demand $8 per hour to do them. Then 50 undocumented people arrive who are happy to do the jobs for $5 per hour. They don't pay income taxes so their net income is not really that different than an American who would do the job.
So in summary:
- avg wage down
- unemployment or encouraged workers up
- gov't revenue down
which part of this is hard for you to understand?Hello yes I am having trouble understanding the part where you say “There are 100 low skill jobs.”
Which economic model implies there is a fixed quantity of jobs in equilibrium in the medium run?
Maybe true on a global scale, but not necessarily true in e.g. a country. Labor shortages can cause industries to lose competitiveness and depress wages in the country.You aren't an economist, are you?
Economists don't really talk about "competitiveness" of a country. A firm might be competitive or less so but countries don't have "competitiveness."
Are you a reader of English then? I mentioned competitiveness of the industries in the country, which means industries as a whole considering the average merits of each company in the industries.
Like coal mining? Or is that one of the filthy jobs Americans love doing?
Immigrants are willing to do the filthy jobs that locals don't want to do in every developed country that I've lived in/visited. If there is a labor shortage for low-skilled jobs, it's likely the elasticity of supply for locals is very large. Heck, most people just don't want to work at burger king. The only people with low elasticity are teenagers and foreigners, so I don't see the problem with letting them in.
Immigrants are willing to do the filthy jobs that locals don't want to do in every developed country that I've lived in/visited. If there is a labor shortage for low-skilled jobs, it's likely the elasticity of supply for locals is very large. Heck, most people just don't want to work at burger king. The only people with low elasticity are teenagers and foreigners, so I don't see the problem with letting them in.
Nah they just drop the price on filthy jobs, making working conditions worse for Americans because immigrants are willing to put up with whatever to be here. You see it in tech all the time, immigrants working on Thanksgiving so they can stay in America, ruins the working conditions for regular americans
Immigrants are willing to do the filthy jobs that locals don't want to do in every developed country that I've lived in/visited. If there is a labor shortage for low-skilled jobs, it's likely the elasticity of supply for locals is very large. Heck, most people just don't want to work at burger king. The only people with low elasticity are teenagers and foreigners, so I don't see the problem with letting them in.
Allowing them in for this enables labor abuse because foreigners are less likely to have any social safety nets. Letting foreigner do come to do low skill jobs enables the environment if those jobs to become even worse so even fewer nationals will be willing to do them.
Immigrants are willing to do the filthy jobs that locals don't want to do in every developed country that I've lived in/visited. If there is a labor shortage for low-skilled jobs, it's likely the elasticity of supply for locals is very large. Heck, most people just don't want to work at burger king. The only people with low elasticity are teenagers and foreigners, so I don't see the problem with letting them in.Nah they just drop the price on filthy jobs, making working conditions worse for Americans because immigrants are willing to put up with whatever to be here. You see it in tech all the time, immigrants working on Thanksgiving so they can stay in America, ruins the working conditions for regular americans
Yup, back when I worked in tech with an Indian boss, he tried to get me to work the day after Thanksgiving.
Letting in millions of Indian immigrants into America will only have the effect of making workplace conditions more akin to working conditions in India.
Which is to say, not good at all:
https://qz.com/india/851280/a-new-global-ranking-confirms-that-many-of-indias-biggest-companies-have-the-worst-work-culture/
https://www.teamblind.com/article/Do-all-Indian-managers-suck-JJsmfgzz
She's referring to a report from the National Academy of Sciences you neanderthals.
https://youtu.be/i1pZfFY132Q?t=1159
She insists that the effect is not small, but zero. But this is not what the report she is referring to says:
"When measured over a period of more than 10 years, the impact of immigration on the wages of natives overall is very small. However, estimates for subgroups span a comparatively wider range, indicating a revised and somewhat more detailed understanding of the wage impact of immigration since the 1990s. To the extent that negative wage effects are found, prior immigrants—who are often the closest substitutes for new immigrants—are most likely to experience them, followed by native-born high school dropouts, who share job qualifications similar to the large share of low-skilled workers among immigrants to the United States."
Thank you for apologizing because it does trigger me. I will not click that link.
Good choice.
It might tempt you to consider evidence and that might be a gateway to thinking in general.
Then you would lose all your echo-chamber little friends.lol. As if. Nice to see we're bringing up strawmen now.
Hit a little too close to home? : )
Lol you're just salty that her work is creating real, measurable impact. Unlike your s**tty papers being published in some z-grade journal that'll be read by 3 people tops.
It’s this, plus immigrants contribute to both demand and supply for labor (i.e. they buy stuff too). Like I get Duflo is liberal, but to pretend she doesn’t know basic econ concepts we teach our undergrads is silly. Yes, she knows that at exogenous supply shock pushes price down, but that’s not all immigrants do.
Think of it as increasing g in a Solow growth model. Do we really think that’s catastrophic? (Obviously there are plenty of cultural and otherwise non-economic reasons people could have that would lead them to oppose greater immigration, but that’s a different issue).There are 100 low-skilled jobs, Americans demand $8 per hour to do them. Then 50 undocumented people arrive who are happy to do the jobs for $5 per hour. They don't pay income taxes so their net income is not really that different than an American who would do the job.
So in summary:
- avg wage down
- unemployment or encouraged workers up
- gov't revenue down
which part of this is hard for you to understand?Hello yes I am having trouble understanding the part where you say “There are 100 low skill jobs.”
Which economic model implies there is a fixed quantity of jobs in equilibrium in the medium run?
I think even obviously smart people will say foolish things to further their political priors. There’s a lot of evidence for that low skilled immigration reduces the wages for low skilled workers. To confidently say the effect is zero is unserious.
I'm not sure why there's such an effort to pretend that the labor demand curve isn't downward-sloping.
Actuall, I am sure why. It's so that "scholars" can look woke and accepting and virtuous.
They need to give up the act. If they won't admit they're wrong on this one, no one will believe them when they're right.
I gather that, as these scholars see it, the tradeoff you mention doesn't exist.
They know that people will give them power and status for being useful pawns, not for being "right." Credibility is only an asset if your audience sometimes wants credible answers to their questions.
She is of course smart enough to know herding is best for her interest. Truth, is not her concern.
I think even obviously smart people will say foolish things to further their political priors. There’s a lot of evidence for that low skilled immigration reduces the wages for low skilled workers. To confidently say the effect is zero is unserious.
lmao, one of the pieces of evidence she cited, the Clemens Bracero paper, was handled by her as editor. Two of the three referees recommended reject and one was neutral. She waived it through.
The Peri Yasenov paper was handled by Hunt. The whole consensus is corrupt