
Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant - kareemm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?_r=1
======
Potando
"Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person
leaving school and entering the job market"

It's bizarre that people don't see this. Anyone concerned about immigrants is
surely, logically, also concerned about people having babies. But somehow
people think that limiting birthrates as a bad thing and limiting immigration
is a good thing. Just a complete inconsistency.

~~~
mlinksva
It's not an inconsistency if they see native-borns as of superior worth to
immigrants. I find this assessment abhorrent, but it isn't totally
inconsistent.

~~~
barking
Homogenous societies are more cohesive

------
adamv99
Kausfiles is one of the best sites that advocates against illegal immigration
from a liberal perspective.
[http://www.kausfiles.com](http://www.kausfiles.com)

Most of us don't compete in the lower end of the market. Those who do are
negatively effected.

~~~
Potando
People at the lower end of the labor market are also adversely affected by
each other. Why are they not proposing deportation of low-skilled Americans?
No justification seems to escape from the fact that anti-immigration is
fundamentally just discriminatory tribalism no different from racism and
homophobia like the OP's father had.

~~~
bruceb
So you will be giving up your citizenship?

------
tsotha
He may be right that the overall affect of immigrants is positive, but the
benefits go to people who are already doing well and the costs are paid by the
people at the bottom. I don't see how anyone can complain about about income
inequality on the one hand and advocate unrestricted immigration on the other.

The US should adopt Australia's point system based approach with a preference
for the young and well educated.

~~~
mlinksva
Unrestricted immigration would reduce global income inequality. I don't judge
the worth of individuals by their nationality, so it is global inequality that
I must be concerned about, if income inequality is my concern.

~~~
tsotha
I'm not interested in global income inequality. It's more important to me that
my country functions well.

~~~
waps
According to the ILO (UN labour organisation) [1], in PPP dollars global
average wage is 1480$ per month. So for the US equality would mean that 50% of
working age people earn less than that. This is only counting wage-earners. No
freelancers, children, elderly or anything like that are collected.

In the US, average wage for employed individuals is about 42000 [2]. Since
there are 300 million Americans and 6.7 billion non-Americans, America should
shift almost entirely to the average to get income equality. This will mean
the equivalent of a 55% across-the-board pay cut for every American, provided
prices do not go down. Your rent will stay the same, but your income should go
down 55%.

(This is in fact happening, but is manifesting as uneven inflation without
corresponding wage rises, so you'd experience an 81% rise in average prices,
rent, food, restaurants, ..., while seeing your wage stay the same)

Also note that average worldwide unemployment is at least a factor of 3 higher
than in the US. So it would not just take a massive pay cut, but also firing
close to 20% of all workers, to bring the US into the worldwide average.

This is why socialists are (or should be) against immigration, and should be
pro-isolationist. I think that if you want to improve the conditions of the
American working class, that would be the correct attitude to have.

In reality the period of 1950-today has been a very exceptional period in
history where not only incomes were higher, by most measures, than ever
before, but income inequality was far lower than the vast majority of economic
history.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040)
[2]
[http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml](http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml)

------
coldtea
> _And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ­most ­settled fact
> in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists
> could not find a single one who rejected the proposition._

Sure, but the University of Chicago is full of neo-liberals, of course they'd
say that. Economics is more of an ideology with some math thrown in for taste,
than a hard science.

~~~
elsjaako
As opposed to your comment, which lacks the math.

Could you point to harder evidence on the subject, from a harder schience? Or
are you claiming that there has been no real science done on the subject?

~~~
A_COMPUTER
If it were economically beneficial for you to liquidate your family in an
insurance scam, would you do it? Some people have other values.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Your comment paints a picture of an economist who would happily liquidate his
family for enough cash. This indicates a weak grasp of the field. Economists
are quite happy to discuss things that are "economically beneficial" (or, to
use the jargon, "utility") not merely as a specific amount of cold hard cash
(modulo the risk of prosecution) but in terms of all the things that people
value, like family and love and human decency and maybe even _having your soul
rot in Hell for murder_ if you happen to believe in such things.

Indeed, understanding that money is just a means to Utility is very important
to understanding economics in general, especially when you start getting into
macro topics like Inflation where the value of money fluctuates. And any
economic analysis which hides important costs or benefits (like Values) off
the balance sheet is bound to produce nonsense results.

Perhaps if you'd taken an introductory course in the topic, you would have
been disabused of these notions. Cute straw-man, though.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
I wish I wouldn't have written my second sentence the way I did because I
don't actually believe any economists would do that, though in my defense I
didn't think anybody would take it seriously. I was using an extreme example
to demonstrate that nobody actually gives primacy to economic arguments, so
their perfectly valid conclusions aren't going to be effective when someone
for example cares more about their own countrymen than foreigners. I 100%
agree that some immigration would improve America economically and reduce
global inequality, but I feel that I have an moral obligation to not throw
poorer Americans under the bus to accomplish it. Also taking everything into
account, maybe that financial benefit wasn't worth it for other reasons.
Massive illegal Mexican immigration seems to have completely fucked over many
Black Americans, for instance. Economics is a useful tool to find these things
out, exactly as you say. I believe that most low-skill immigration to the US
is a process of enriching the richest by replacing the poorest with even
poorer and transitioning the other poor to government assistance.

------
NhanH
This thread isn't going to be productive, so in HN spirit, I would like to
propose a side project for anyone interested:

\- Develop a tool that monitor front page of HN

\- Train a classifier that detect immigration topic

\- Automatically post a well explained comment for your side of the debate

\- Make it open source so the other side can have one.

------
stretchwithme
Every set of hands comes with a mouth also. Immigrants increase the supply of
labor but also the demand for what labor produces.

Perhaps the confusion arises because the immigrant does not necessarily
purchase goods and services produced in their new country. We all work in a
global economy were its impossible to follow all of the transactions between
what we produce and what we consume. That would be true even if nothing ever
crossed international borders.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
From a purely economic perspective immigrants capture almost all net economic
boost for themselves. Capital/property owners get a small boost. It's a wash
or net negative for the general population of the country.

That's from a purely economic perspective. What nobody ever wants to discuss
is that creating an ever-more culturally and ethnically fractious country is a
huge problem looking ahead decades quite aside from near term GNP prints.

~~~
Potando
Did you just say that immigration is harmful because workers get most of the
benefit and property owners relatively little? This economic perspective seems
to be only looking at the economy of one group of people.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
An immigration policy should be crafted to serve the needs of the citizenry.
Is this controversial? If you're an open borders nutjob, let me know and I'll
allow you to carry on in peace.

------
whybroke
So the same companies that conspire to suppress wages in every other way are
pushing for an immigration policy that does the opposite? Um, no.

------
A_COMPUTER
I didn't see anything new in this article, it pretty much rehashed the same
arguments I've seen since forever. I feel like the low-skill, repetitive
nature of the work of a pro-immigration NYT columnist makes it specially
suited for cost-saving through automation or outsourcing. The field seems ripe
for disruption, any takers?

------
adamv99
Those generally shilling for illegal immigration are the ones getting benefit
of cheap labor not competing in the manual labor market. You increase supply
the price you can charge plummets. Pretty easy to understand.

~~~
NhanH
At the very least, you have to prove that demand is fixed. Otherwise it's
meaningless to claim that supply increase have any effect on price (price may
momentarily decrease, but cheaper price could increase demand which bring
price back up).

And before someone claims that immigrants don't participate in normal labor
pool, then you should advocate for open border, free market style

------
Shivetya
ooh boy, trickle down immigration!

Really though they do take jobs. It just depends on where you are in the job
world how affected you are. Where I am we end up with a lot of people from
India, a lot because some of the contract companies we use are owned by
immigrants, now naturalized, or the like. Still they are displacing a good
number of natural born. I am all for their immigration, they bring good skills
and a great work ethic which is lost on a lot of people born here.

Looking south of the border, the damage here is that low skilled low pay jobs
will get filled likely by those who come to work. Whether they displace
natural born citizens is another thing, the difference is the later likely
qualifies for more assistance programs and have been on them to the point of
dependance.

Make no excuse though, the push for integration of the large influx from
Mexico and Central America is business oriented. They want these people as
they are coming to work jobs many already here turn their noses up at. That
some will become dependent on the government makes both parties salivate, that
they cause concern to people of both parties doesn't hurt either

------
Swizec
"Of course foreigners steal your job, but maybe, if someone without contacts,
money, or speaking the language steals your job, you're shit." ~ Louis C. K.

As one of those people stealing your jobs. I agree. And I don't even have to
be on-site to do it. Because internet is awesome.

~~~
coldtea
> _" Of course foreigners steal your job, but maybe, if someone without
> contacts, money, or speaking the language steals your job, you're shit." ~
> Louis C. K._

Or, you know, you're working class/poor black/unskilled laborer etc, which for
a rich american or upper/middle-class it's same as "shit".

I find this argument BS. Those people, from factory workers, to cooks, to
street cleaners, to miners, nurses, construction workers, farm workers, etc,
do a valuable job, much more essential actually than most of "knowledge
economy", in that everything would stop to a standstill without those jobs,
whereas we did have an economy in the 70's even without Google and the
internet.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
> Louis C. K. being a cunt

The lack of fellow-feeling with these people really disturbs me. OK, you were
blessed with some brains and are doing well. Everybody grinding it out in your
country with a worse job deserves your scorn?

Newsflash: odds are good one of your kids won't be especially smart. Unless
you've lined up a huge inheritance, a horrible cut-throat labor market is
probably going to hurt your progeny.

That's an appeal to relatively narrow self interests. The lack of concern for
fellow citizens out of principle amazes me. If you think citizenship and
borders are irrelevant you need to grow up. Who do you think will have your
back if it hits the fan and we have to tough out a nuclear war or similar?
These fresh of the boaters sure won't.

~~~
Swizec
> Who do you think will have your back if it hits the fan and we have to tough
> out a nuclear war or similar? These fresh of the boaters sure won't.

 _People_ will. FOB or not doesn't matter. I'd venture as far as saying that
most FOBs I've met are far nicer people than most americans. Regardless of the
originating culture.

Most Americans in fact display the exact same arrogance you just did. They're
better than everyone else just because they happen to have won the geographic
lottery.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
> won the geographic lottery

America is great because it is filled with Americans. The geography is
relevant but not so much as is fashionable to claim.

If you fill America with people from other places it ceases to be America. It
will more and more resemble the inferior places the newcomers come from.

> FOB doesn't matter

Have you renounced your foreign national citizenship? How many passports do
you hold? It definitely matters. You're going to go wherever you can earn a
buck. Rootless cosmopolitan and you know it. I'm here until I die for sure.

------
jquery
More shilling for cheap labor. Articles like this are the left-wing equivalent
of climate-change denial. "Unlimited immigration has literally no consequences
but rainbows and sunshine!"

~~~
fennecfoxen
Oh, man, you need to be careful about bringing up the specter of "climate-
change denial" like it's going to buttress your point. If the consensus of
scientists is something you actually respect, we should consider the attitudes
of people whose job it is to study this sort of thing. I'll just leave this
here for a user-friendly start and some good references on the consensus of
economists: [http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf](http://ew-
econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf)

Spoilers: while I don't see immigration specifically addressed here, "cheap
labor" is very, very high on the agenda. Free trade and outsourcing score each
score >85% support... and it seems unlikely that the free-trade attitude will
evaporate just because it's free trade in _labor_ that we're talking about.
The sentiments you've expressed can neatly be construed as another kind of
economic protectionism of the sort economists loathe...

~~~
Bluestrike2
For the most part, economists don't really discriminate between the free trade
of goods and the free trade of labor. They're so closely linked in any case
that they're functionally the same in this context.

~~~
revelation
That's a funny idea in a world where you can't ask someone what they're making
and mentioning _union_ will get you fired.

