Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pageviews past week

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Who You Gonna Believe The Undocumented E-Mail or Your Lying Eyes. By Chuck McGlawn

Distorting the effect of immigration on the US Economy is no difficult task. All it requires is an uninformed populace, (No shortage there.) a bump up in unemployment, (Even if the bump-up is localized.) and a shrinking press looking for a scandal to report, (Unemployed news writers are plentiful.) and up pops a Cottage Industry of forwarding e-mails, and You-Tube videos about some isolated stories about the horrors of immigration. You know this you have received them and you have become part of the transmission belt by forwarding them. 

Some of the stories you get are the truth, some are half-truths and some are outright fabrications. Many if not most are the effects observed in an isolated place by a single individual that may have an agenda and he may see things and report his observations in a way that supports that agenda. Let me invite you to look at a more complete picture. 

Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has conducted comprehensive research on “The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity” His research covered the effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy. 

This is accomplished by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers.
Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that:
Ø    Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.
Ø      Stimulate investment.
Ø      Promote specialization.
This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

Immigration in recent decades has significantly increased the presence of foreign-born workers in the United States. The impact of these immigrants on the U.S. economy is a mixed bag hotly debated.
Ø      Some stories in the popular press suggest that immigrants diminish the job opportunities of workers born in the United States.
Ø      Others portray immigrants as filling essential jobs that are shunned by other workers.
Economists who have analyzed local labor markets have mostly failed to find large effects of immigrants on employment and wages of U.S.-born workers (see Borjas 2006; Card 2001, 2007, 2009; and Card and Lewis 2007).

The information that follows summarizes recent research by Peri (2009) and Peri and Sparber (2009) examining the impact of immigrants on the broader U.S. economy.
Ø      These studies systematically analyze how immigrants affect total output.
Ø      Income per worker.
Ø      Employment in the short and long run.
Consistent with previous research, the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States.
 
At the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker and a reduction in skills per worker as measured by the share of college-educated workers in a state. These two effects have opposite and roughly equal effect on labor productivity.

Immigration effects on employment, income, and productivity vary by occupation, job, and industry. Nonetheless, it is possible to total these effects to get an aggregate economic impact. Here we attempt to quantify the aggregate gains and losses for the U.S. economy from immigration. If the average impact on employment and income per worker is positive, this implies an aggregate “surplus” from immigration. In other words, the total gains accruing to some U.S.-born workers are larger than the total losses suffered by others. (It is from “losses suffered by others” group that all the negative stories are generated.)
First, there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run. Data on U.S.-born worker employment imply small effects, with estimates never statistically different from zero. The impact on hours per worker is similar. We observe insignificant effects in the short run and a small but significant positive effect in the long run. At the same time, immigration reduces somewhat the skill intensity of workers in the short and long run because immigrants have a slightly lower average education level than U.S.-born workers.

Second, the positive long-run effect on income per U.S.-born worker accrues over some time. In the short run, small insignificant effects are observed. Over the long run, however, a net inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of employment increases income per worker by 0.6% to 0.9%. This implies that total immigration to the United States from 1990 to 2007 was associated with a 6.6% to 9.9% increase in real income per worker. That equals an increase of about $5,100 in the yearly income of the average U.S. worker in constant 2005 dollars. Such a gain equals 20% to 25% of the total real increase in average yearly income per worker registered in the United States between 1990 and 2007.
 
So please, stop with the stories of your next door neighbor’s Uncle’s School teacher’s brother in law lost his dry walling job to an immigrant. Because it is just as true or just as false, that my cousin’s exercise instructor’s room mate’s brother replaced an immigrant at a Hardware Store job.

The third result is that the long-run increase in income per worker associated with immigrants is mainly due to increases in the efficiency and productivity of state economies. This effect becomes apparent in the medium to long run. Such a gradual response of productivity is accompanied by a gradual response of capital intensity. While in the short run, physical capital per unit of output is decreased by net immigration, in the medium to long run, businesses expand their equipment and physical plant proportionally to their increase in production.
How can these patterns be explained? 

The effects identified above can be explained by adjustments businesses make over time that allow them to take full advantage of the new immigrant labor supply. These adjustments, including upgrading and expanding capital stock, provide businesses with opportunities to expand in response to hiring immigrants.
This process can be analyzed at the state level (see Peri and Sparber 2009). The analysis begins with the well-documented phenomenon that U.S.-born workers and immigrants tend to take different occupations. Among less-educated workers, those born in the United States tend to have jobs in manufacturing or mining, while immigrants tend to have jobs in personal services and agriculture. Second, within industries and specific businesses, immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to specialize in different job tasks. Because those born in the United States have relatively better English language skills, they tend to specialize in communication tasks. Immigrants tend to specialize in other tasks, such as manual labor. Just as in the standard concept of comparative advantage, this results in specialization and improved production efficiency. 

Figure 1
Communication/manual skills among less-educated U.S.-born workers
Communication/manual skills among less-educated U.S.-born workers
Sorry the graph did not copy.

Note: The data on average communication/manual skills by state are from Peri and Sparber (2009), obtained from the manual and communication intensity of occupations, weighted according to the distributional occupation of U.S.-born workers.

If these patterns are driving the differences across states, then in states where immigration has been heavy, U.S.-born workers with less education should have shifted toward more communication-intensive jobs. Figure 1 shows exactly this. The share of immigrants among the less educated is strongly correlated with the extent of U.S.-born worker specialization in communication tasks. Each point in the graph represents a U.S. state in 2005. In states with a heavy concentration of less-educated immigrants, U.S.-born workers have migrated toward more communication-intensive occupations. Those jobs pay higher wages than manual jobs, so such a mechanism has stimulated the productivity of workers born in the United States and generated new employment opportunities.

To better understand this mechanism, it is useful to consider the following hypothetical illustration. As young immigrants with low schooling levels take manually intensive construction jobs, the construction companies that employ them have opportunities to expand. This increases the demand for construction supervisors, coordinators, designers, and so on. Those are occupations with greater communication intensity and are typically staffed by U.S.-born workers who have moved away from manual construction jobs. This complementary task specialization typically pushes U.S.-born workers toward better-paying jobs, enhances the efficiency of production, and creates jobs. This task specialization, however, may involve adoption of different techniques or managerial procedures and the renovation or replacement of capital equipment. Hence, it takes some years to be fully realized. 

Conclusions
The U.S. economy is dynamic, shedding and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Businesses are in a continuous state of flux. The most accurate way to gauge the net impact of immigration on such an economy is to analyze the effects dynamically over time. Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.
References
Borjas, George J. 2006. “Native Internal Migration and the Labor Market Impact of Immigration.” Journal of Human Resources 41(2), pp. 221–258.
Card, David. 2001. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19(1), pp. 22–64.
Card, David. 2007. “How Immigration Affects U.S. Cities.” University College London, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Discussion Paper 11/07.
Card, David. 2009. “Immigration and Inequality.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 99(2), pp. 1–21.
Card, David, and Ethan Lewis. 2007. “The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts.” In Mexican Immigration to the United States, ed. George J. Borjas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Peri, Giovanni, and Chad Sparber. 2009. “Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3), pp. 135–169.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, commenter #1.

The one who linked this study is as disingenuous as those who he purports to attack.

No one I know has a problem with LEGAL immigrants. We condemn the ILLEGAL immigrants who defy the rule of law. Many prospective LEGAL immigrants who have filled out their paperwork, paid their fees and taken their tests to acquire a working VISA are put on hold for up to a decade because ILLEGAL immigrants have saturated our job markets. So those who follow the rules are punished while those who break the rules are rewarded. This degrades our entire society.

We spend $20B annually on ILLEGAL immigrants just in California (ie, health care, incarcerations, education and welfare). 30% of our beds in our California prison system are occupied by illegal invaders. Over half the babies born in California hospitals are to illegal invader parents. No surprise why our quality of life has disintegrated in the last decade.

Take the author with a grain of salt. Big chunks of information are omitted. You have to read between the lines. Unfortunately, that's part of the modern society that we must tolerate.

Anonymous said...

If the author of the article is a landlord and was prohibited from doing a background check (criminal and financial)on renter applicants before they occupied his property no doubt he would scream bloody murder.

But allowing unscreened foreigners into our country is fine with him.

Amusing.

Chuckest said...

Hello Commenter #1 You pass off the results of this study by calling it absurd. So, it doesn't matter to you that aggregate immigration increases employment (Or I should say in our current economy reduces unemployment.). And it doesn't matter that aggregate immigration increases real wage increases. And it doesn't matter to you that aggregate immigration moves US born workers to higher paying jobs.

I might add, and this should make you squirm in your seat, almost every study of the effects of "illegal" immigration reveals that there is a net gain to the US economy. Just in case you do not know what net gain means, all studies show that "illegals" produce more in tax revenues than they consume in social services.
Chuck McGlawn

Chuck McGlawn said...

Commenter 2,

I am just going to thank you for visiting my Blog, and reading my post. I will be assuming you have no interest in liberty, oblivious to the value of a free market, and no clue to the significance of the "rule of law".

Just set atop the perch and direct the lives of others through statutes that are passed with your support or approval.

I am just going to leave you with the conclusion reached by the researcher.

Conclusions
The U.S. economy is dynamic, shedding and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Businesses are in a continuous state of flux. The most accurate way to gauge the net impact of immigration on such an economy is to analyze the effects dynamically over time. Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.

Or was that my conclusion after "big chunks of information were left out?

As for the $20 Billion that it cost California for illegals health care, incarcerations, education and welfare, plus those same costs for those services paid by the 49 other States, means nothing. Remember this study and almost every study shows illegal immigration is a "NET GAIN" for the US Economy.

Chuck McGlawn said...

Hello Anonymous #3 (I wonder how many different people to which I am speaking.) You may find it amusing, But I find it sad that you cannot draw a distinction between me screening my renters, and you screening my renters. Sad indeed.

How did you find this blog? Why would you visit this blog?

Chuck McGlawn said...

Well, I am getting my answer. The first three commenters are not going to believe their lying eyes.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. McGlawn could have his way America would open our doors to the unscreened indigent masses from Africa, South America, Central America, China, Southeast Asia and India. According to Mr. McGlawn's math the illegal indigents are "net gains". So beckoning the indigent masses from the four corners of mother earth would surely save us from our current economic demise. I suggest you contact the ovall office with your proposal, Mr. McGlawn. No doubt President Obama and his staff would be all ears. It might even earn you a cabinet position! :D

Chuckest said...

To all the Anonymies, The only perspective that I bring to this blog is an advocacy for Liberty. All of the data, statistics and "math" are gleaned from authorities on the particular subject being covered.

Someone (I wish you anonymies would pick a name, I doesn't have to be your real name, just pick it and stick with it.)Anonymous #4 referred to it as "my math". It is not only not my math, but it is the math of almost EVERY ECONOMIST that undertakes a study of this subject. In fact, George Borjas, the most immigrant hating Labor Economist on the planet(Himself an immigrant)has studied and wrote extensively on illegal immigration's effect on US labor, reports that only among US born High School droop-outs only an 8% drop in employment . All other segments of the domestic labor force experiences an increase in employment from illegal immigrants. Not my math, but immigrant hating Borjas reportes an increase in employment among HS grads, College grads, and holders of advanced degrees.

If what you seek is a better life for yourself and a few million migrant workers you would favor a more sensible immigration policy. But if what you seek is a population free of people that speak Spanish only then tax me and yourselves to build higher walls, electrified fences, and gun towers along the US Mexican border to make sure the US remains "Pure". And expect higher unemployment and more costly products and services.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #4 here.

You are the one who supports the math that claims that illegal migrants are a "net gain" to the US economy. You cannot run away from that claim. You own the endorsement, Mr. McGlawn.

So it stands to reason that you would support the US recruitment of unlimted indigent illegals from all 4 corners of the earth. If illegals are "net gains" then more would be better. Why don't we send US transport ships to all the impoverished nations and ship them back to America? Perhaps that could be part of Obama's next stimulus plan. Saturate the nation with unscreened indigent illegals to grow the economy and save the union.

/Sarcasm off/

I hope all readers can now see the absurdity of the underlying premise of this blog.

Chuckest said...

Hello Anonymous #4,
Anonymous #4 said, "You are the one who supports the math that claims that illegal migrants are a "net gain" to the US economy."

McG: #4, I do not have the economic training or expertise to support or reject the conclusions arrived at by the Economist quoted in this blog entry, and almost every other economist that undertakes a study of immigration and its effect on the US economy. Let me repeat these are not my economic conclusions.

#4 said, "You cannot run away from that claim."

McG: I cannot run away from any claim that I did not make.

However, I do agree with Professor Giovanni Peri when he says, "The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy... Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This... boosts income per worker...

If that mean I "own the endorsement", so be it.

#4 said, "You own the endorsement, Mr. McGlawn. So it stands to reason that you would support the US recruitment of unlimted indigent illegals from all 4 corners of the earth."

McG: I am sorry #4 that does not "stand to reason" I am an advocate of Liberty. Therefore, I do not believe in the INITIATION OF FORCE to stop migrants, I also would not use the INITIATION OF FORCE to recuite migrants to come to the US. And #4 if you would stop trying to FORCE others to do what YOU think is best, and to just do what you think is best for you, and let the free market work its magic, the result will be the exact right amount of migrant workers filling the exact amount of available work.

#4 said, "If illegals are "net gains" then more would be better."

Mcg: #4, if something is good it does not always follow that more is better. There is a thing called "marginal utility" Example: If you are at a baseball game on a hot summer day, then an Ice cream cone for $1.00 would be good a second one for $1.00 may also be good but another 4 for $4.00 might not be good, 12 more for 12 more for $12.00 would not be good.

#4 said, "Why don't we send US transport ships to all the impoverished nations and ship them back to America?"

McG: That would have the same effect of buying 18 ice cream cones on a hot summer day for $18.00. The first three or maybe four have utility value. Choking down the fourth man not provide you a full dollar of value. cone five through eighteen would have no marginal value at all.

#4 said, "/Sarcasm off/ I hope all readers can now see the absurdity of the underlying premise of this blog."

I HOPE some readers, #4 may be HOPELESS, will se the advantage of a more sensible immigration policy, that allows needed and needy workers from coming to the US and provide utility value as a result of the work that they do, and the multiplier effect of expanding labor demand for domestic workers.

And #4 google "immigration, net gain. It may be an eye opening experience for you.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Let me repeat these are not my economic conclusions"

Yet you used them to support your premise so you certainly endorse them. And if illegal indigents are "net gains" you must believe that MORE ARE BETTER, right? So let's bring all of the world's indigents to America. Based on your premise it would solve our current economic problems by making us a more economic powerful nation. :)

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I cannot run away from any claim that I did not make"

Yet you endorse his study - otherwise you wouldn't have used it to build your premise. So why don't you endorse bringing all of the world's indigents to America if they would all be "net gains"? Please at least be consistent in your positions.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"if something is good it does not always follow that more is better. There is a thing called "marginal utility"

Wait a second, Mr. McGlawn. Earlier in this discussion you stated:

"I am an advocate of Liberty. Therefore, I do not believe in the INITIATION OF FORCE to stop migrants, I also would not use the INITIATION OF FORCE to recuite migrants to come to the US"

So now you advocate unlimited, unscreened immigration and liberty UP TO A CERTAIN POINT then you too would use INITIATION OF FORCE to stop immigration once "marginal utility" levels were realized, right? After all, you wouldn't allow "net losses" into the country to your own demise, would you?

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I HOPE some readers, #4 may be HOPELESS, will se the advantage of a more sensible immigration policy, that allows needed and needy workers from coming to the US and provide utility value as a result of the work that they do, and the multiplier effect of expanding labor demand for domestic workers"

We already have ample programs that allow for foreigners to enter our country LEGALLY with work visas. In fact, there are MILLIONS of foreigners who have filled out their paperwork, paid their fees and taken their tests (health inspections, etc)to get a US work visa. They are placed on hold for up to a decade because ILLEGAL FOREIGNERS hold jobs UNLAWFULLY in the US that the LEGAL APPLICANTS could perform. So obviously you wish to punish those who follow the rules and reward those who break the rules. Generally - we call such behavior ANARCHY. Look it up in the dictionary when you get the chance.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"And #4 google "immigration, net gain. It may be an eye opening experience for you.

Google 'anarchy' and see how many nations prospered with such a system, Mr. McGlawn.

And name ONE modern civilized nation in the world today that allows unscreened foreigners to cross their borders at will.

You see, if illegal immigration were a GOOD THING and resulted in "net gains" to an economy EVERY NATION WOULD ALLOW IT, Mr. McGlawn. Yet not one civilized nation in the world today would ever consider such a destructive practice.

Why don't you just admit that you promote a national policy that is preposterously absurd? :)

Chuckest said...

Anonymous said...

Which one of the Anonymes are you? I am going to call you A5

A5 said, "Mr. McGlawn said: Let me repeat these are not my economic conclusions" Yet you used them to support your premise..."

McG I have no premise. As I have said earlier, "the only thing I bring to this blog is an advocacy of Liberty." all of the data, statistics and projections are the results of Professor Giovanni Peri's research. It is he that concludes, "The most accurate way to gauge the net impact of immigration on such an economy is to analyze the effects dynamically over time. Data show that, on net, immigrants
1,expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity,

2,stimulate investment

3,promote specialization that... boosts productivity.

4, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States."

A5 goes on to say, "And if illegal indigents [why do you call them "indigents"? they are people just like you] are "net gains" you must believe that MORE ARE BETTER, right?...

McG: WRONG. Twenty pounds of fertilizer would benefit your lawn. 5,000 pounds of bullshit would be harmful to your lawn.

And I believe you could e a major contributor to that 5,000 pounds of bullshit to complete the experimentation.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Which one of the Anonymes are you? I am going to call you A5"

You would be wrong. I am still A4, Mr. McGlawn. And I masterfully backed you into a corner and made you look rather foolish. That is the reason you failed to respond to several of my counterpoints in my previous post. You knew you've been had - so you completely sidestepped them. Next time be very careful when posting your opinons publicly on controversial matters because there are some in the audience who can make you eat your words. You have a reputation to protect. No? :)

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I have no premise"

Sure you had a premise. It was that illegal immigrants are "net gains" and good for our society. I proved to you how that is far from the truth. In fact, you could not name one other civilized nation in the world that practices such a policy. If it were truly a good practice - everyone would be doing it to create a competitive economic advantage over the others. Yet no one does it. And you can't explain why that is. :)

"As I have said earlier, "the only thing I bring to this blog is an advocacy of Liberty."

No. You push an agenda for open borders. But when I dissected your argument I exposed it for what it is: Pure nonsense. You want "liberty" for indigent illegal foreigner while shackling the American citizens in chains. Your argument is full of porous holes without a leg to stand on. :)

Mr. McGlawn said:

"A5 goes on to say, "And if illegal indigents [why do you call them "indigents"?"

Because the large, large percentage of them are indigents. Who else would leave their homelands to work for $5-$8/hr in a land where they don't even understand our language? Naturally many of them come here to take advantage of our generousity and jump on the welfare wagon by dropping babies in our hospitals. Over 50% of babies born in California hospitals are born to illegal parents. You pay for that. You finance their lotto ticket to social services. And since you promote it you are a big part of the problem. :)

"McG: WRONG. Twenty pounds of fertilizer would benefit your lawn. 5,000 pounds of bullshit would be harmful to your lawn"

We reached that 5,000 pound of BS mark a long time ago. So at what point do you finally say "STOP!". Oh, I forgot. You believe in "LIBERTY" - therefore you are in favor of destroying your own nation to satisfy your phony ideological fantasy.

As I stated: You and yours are all part of the problem. You love to reward the rule breakers while punishing the rule followers - thereby ripping apart the very fabric that once made America the greatest nation on earth.

Your inability to understand the extent of your insidious thought process is stupefying.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Mr. McGlawn ran away.

I hate when that happens!

They always come charging out of the gate then after a few back and forths the tail goes between the legs and they run off.

I hope that both Mr. McGlawn and his readers learned something during this discourse.

Chuckest said...

Hello A4, The study I drew from was conducted by Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He wrote, Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that:
Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.

Stimulate investment.

Promote specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.

THEN HE ADDS: At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

A4 WHICH ONE OF: Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.

Stimulate investment.

Promote specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.

the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States. At the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, THAT IS WHAT PROFESSOR PERI SAID. I CHOSE HIS STUDY BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MORE RECENT STUDIES. AND IT WAS PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANSISCO. AND HE IS NOT ALONE HE SITED OTHER STUDES:Borjas, George J. 2006. “Native Internal Migration and the Labor Market Impact of Immigration.” Journal of Human Resources 41(2), pp. 221–258.

Card, David. 2001. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19(1), pp. 22–64.

Card, David. 2007. “How Immigration Affects U.S. Cities.” University College London, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Discussion Paper 11/07.

Card, David. 2009. “Immigration and Inequality.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 99(2), pp. 1–21.

Card, David, and Ethan Lewis. 2007. “The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts.” In Mexican Immigration to the United States, ed.

George J. Borjas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Peri, Giovanni, and Chad Sparber. 2009. “Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3), pp. 135–169.

Peri, Giovanni. 2009. “The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States.” NBER Working Paper 15507.

THE REASON THAT I SUPPORT A MORE SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY. And when liberty also brings greater prosperity I am on board with that.

So tell me A4 what is it about illegal immigration that raises your ire?

Chuckest said...

Hello A4, The study I drew from was conducted by Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He wrote, Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that:
Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.

Stimulate investment.

Promote specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.

THEN HE ADDS: At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

A4 WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU OPPOSE?: Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.

Stimulate investment.

Promote specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.

the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States. At the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, THAT IS WHAT PROFESSOR PERI SAID. I CHOSE HIS STUDY BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MORE RECENT STUDIES. AND IT WAS PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANSISCO. AND HE IS NOT ALONE HE SITED OTHER STUDES:Borjas, George J. 2006. “Native Internal Migration and the Labor Market Impact of Immigration.” Journal of Human Resources 41(2), pp. 221–258.

Card, David. 2001. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19(1), pp. 22–64.

Card, David. 2007. “How Immigration Affects U.S. Cities.” University College London, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Discussion Paper 11/07.

Card, David. 2009. “Immigration and Inequality.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 99(2), pp. 1–21.

Card, David, and Ethan Lewis. 2007. “The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts.” In Mexican Immigration to the United States, ed.

George J. Borjas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Peri, Giovanni, and Chad Sparber. 2009. “Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3), pp. 135–169.

Peri, Giovanni. 2009. “The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States.” NBER Working Paper 15507.

THE REASON THAT I SUPPORT A MORE SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY. And when liberty also brings greater prosperity I am on board with that. HOW ABOUT YOU?

So tell me A4 what is it about illegal immigration that raises your ire?

Chuckest said...

I am showing my name, and everyone else is anonymous. So who is running away?

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

I am not going to allow you to keep running away from and sidestepping my arguments.

Once again, if open borders and unscreened migrants crossing national boundaries at will is good for an economy - THEN WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE? All civilized nations guard their borders vigorously. You can't name one that doesn't. Do you think you are smarter than all the civilized nations? If what you promote provides a "net gain" to an economy all would participate. Yet none do. Why is that, Mr. McGlawn? You need to address that question.

Also, you say that all you care about is "LIBERTY" yet you fully admit that unchecked immigration is subject to the laws of 'marginal utility' which goes hand in hand with the laws of diminshing returns - meaning that at some point an illegal foreigner becomes a 'net loss' to our society. So what do you do at that point, Mr. McGlawn? Would you continue to allow unchecked migrants into the nation and destroy our economic stability in pursuit of your "LIBERTY" or would you impose sanctions and limitations on the migrants to stop their flow? Please respond to the question.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"The study I drew from was conducted by Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco"

I am not impressed with titles like you are, especially with someone attached to the Federal Reserve. In fact, I immediately look upon such a title with great suspicion since The Fed are the ones who have largely created the financial mess we find ourselves in today. The Secretary of the Treasury is a proven tax cheat. He used to the President of the Fed Reserve of New York. So I should automatically respect and accept anything he tells us too? I should not question anything he says? Besides, Peri's research focused on LEGAL - NOT ILLEGAL - immigrants. Just because someone says something or manipulates data to push a certain agenda does not mean that I must accept what he says. Common sense in REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES tells me the exact opposite. ILLEGAL MIGRANTS ARE NET LOSSES. That is why not even ONE OTHER CIVILIZED NATION allows unchecked and unauthorized migrants in their countries. If it were a good thing ALL NATIONS WOULD DO IT!!!!

Mr. McGlawn said:

"THE REASON THAT I SUPPORT A MORE SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY"

No. You believe in LIBERTY for illegal migrants. You believe in financial tyranny over the American citizens and taxpayers. You believe in punishing the rule followers to generate LIBERTY for the ruler breakers. Your position is crystal clear.

"So tell me A4 what is it about illegal immigration that raises your ire?"

It destroys national sovereigty by punishing good law-abiding, productive American citizens while rewarding illegal parasites who violate federal statutes and labor laws that were enacted to maintain a stable and civilized society.

"I am showing my name, and everyone else is anonymous. So who is running away?"

Being anonymous does not equate with "running away". Just because you CHOOSE to show your name does not make your opinion superior to an anonymous poster's opinion. It is the quality and the integrity and the veracity and the accuracy of an opinion that measures it's greatness. Not the name behind it.

Chuckest said...

You want to know ...WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE?

You seem to think that I do not have an answer to that question.Well A4 I do have an answer. But if the fact that almost every economists, including the most vociferous anti illegal immigrationist, Georg Borst say that illegal immigration is a net gain to the US, and you don't get it. What makes me think you would understand why most nations have these seriously closed borders?

You make wild statements unsubstantiated by any source documentation. You purposely ignored the economic law of "Marginal Utility" in the early part of one of your comments, only later in the same comment you tried to use it against me.

You showed your lack of understanding when you tried to analogize Marginal Utility and Diminishing returns. Marginal utility is the value you place on something you are acquiring, diminishing returns has to do with the profit during the output process.

But this is not at all surprising, coming from one so taken in by the anti-immigration propagandist that he refuses to confront the simple concept of Net Gain. What is it about "NET GAIN" do you not understand?

Ahhh, but right now you are probably asking when am I going to answer you question: ...WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE? I will make you a deal. I have your answer, but again I am not sure you will understand my answer. I will give you my answer when you tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US that where there top ten basketball teams have a gross income of $8 Billion? That is Billion with a B. Tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US where the single individual between the ages of 45 and 54 spends $3,177.00 per year on entertainment? Tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US where the top five private charities has combined donations of $10 Billion. Tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US where the top 4 richest people have a combined wealth of $150 Billion? Tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US that that subsidizes education to the tune of almost $488 Billion"

I am hoping you have my answer. But if you are still in a fog, a situation that you should be accustomed to by now. Just post a comment saying DUH I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

A4 here. The parameters were changed on the blog comments character limit here - so I cannot provide my full response. That is a telltale sign that I won the debate. Thanks for the victory.

Chuckest said...

The parameters have not changed try again.

Chuckest said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuckest said...

I tested the perameters they said 4,00 characters were acceptable Try again

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Georg Borst say that illegal immigration is a net gain to the US"

Do you mean the George Borst who is the CEO for Toyota Financial Services? :) Naturally Borst would be in favor of paying hired help $8/hr to assemble his Toyotas so that his company can accumulate bigger profits at the expense of the worker bee. How would Borst accomplish that? Easy. By promoting AMNESTY to flood the US market with cheap foreign labor to bring down wages. Does Borst give a damn whether $8/hr. is not a living wage? Of course not. Borst wants slave labor. Slaves are easier to control.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"What makes me think you would understand why most nations have these seriously closed borders?"

Obviously you know next to nothing of world history. Nations that do not protect their borders do not last long. Nations vigorously defend against illegal intruders to maintain civility, stability and security for their citizens. That is the reason you cannot name a single developed and civilized nation that allows illegals to cross their borders at will.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"You showed your lack of understanding when you tried to analogize Marginal Utility and Diminishing returns"

Taken from Wikipedia:

"In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the utility gained (or lost) from an increase (or decrease) in the consumption of that good or service. Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units"

Clearly, 'marginal utility' and 'diminishing marginal utility or returns' are explicitly related. While you bone up on your world history you should also take a macro and micro economics course.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"What is it about "NET GAIN" do you not understand?"

Please pull your nose out of manipulated and agendized academic studies and use what little common sense you have left. First off, the Peri study did not differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL migrants - so attempting to link it to your premise is, at best, disingenous. Professor Peri made NO mention of social service resources ($$$) that these illegal must use while collecting a wage of $5-$7/hr for their labor. How could they afford shelter, food, health care, transportation, clothing, etc... on such a wage in Calfornia? Impossible. Therefore, the illegals must parasitically rely on the taxpayers to subsidize their low wages just to survive. Professor Peri fails to mention that, doesn't he? The FACT is that the illegal intruders use MUCH MORE in service dolllars than they contribute to the economy. We spend $20B a year on social services for illegals JUST IN CALIFORNIA ALONE!!!

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I will give you my answer when you tell me EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION other than the US that where there top ten basketball teams have a gross income of $8 Billion?"

The reknown Human Development Index (HDI) shows that Norway, Australia and Holland have higher standards of living that we do in the USA. All 3 of those nations have very strict immigration laws. And if you adjust for INEQUALITY it shows that the USA is 23rd on the HDI - meaning that the USA disproportionately distributes wealth UPWARDS to the top 1% - at the expense of the worker bees. And illegals DISPLACE citizens from jobs in society. Look how they have decimated the construction industry for American labor. To deny that you would have to be brain dead or egregiously deceitful.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"But if you are still in a fog, a situation that you should be accustomed to by now"

I will let the readers of our debate judge which of the two of us is "in a fog". To me - the answer is obvious. I had no intent to embarrass you at the onset - but it seems as we continued our discourse that it was unavoidable. I hope your followers will forgive your flaws. :)

Chuckest said...

Hello A4,

I am not going to answer every error you have committed. I am going to write an article from me, that you can take pot shots for as long as you like. I can defend my words. I cannot defend everything that all of the economist that keep insisting that illegal immigration is a net gain to the US.

Here are some of my corrections of some of the things you said.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Georg Borst say that illegal immigration is a net gain to the US"

Do you mean the George Borst who is the CEO for Toyota Financial Services? :)

No, I mean George J. Borjs. He is an economist at the University of Chicago. He is also the most vocal anti-illegal immigrant on the planet. However, he cannot deny the numbers, so he reports that every educational stratum HS Grads, College Grads, holders of advanced degrees experience an increase in employment opportunities resulting from illegal immigration, and only a 9% decrease in employment opportunities among HS dropouts. Moreover, the increases out number the decreases.

You must really want to win this exchange. Therefore, you Google up George Borst the CEO for Toyota Financial Services, and you attribute to him the job of hiring assembly line workers. He doesn't. Moreover, whoever does would never hire illegals unless they had some very convincing citizenship documentation? In addition, no one employed by Toyota makes $8.00 per hour.

A4 said, "Obviously you know next to nothing of world history. Nations that do not protect their borders do not last long."

You of coarse have the names of several nations that didn't last long with the cause being open borders.Could you share with us the names of some of those Nations. In my ignorance of history I only know one nation where immigration MAY have played a miniscule part in its collapse, that being Rome.

You may be surprised to know immigration control is, with very few exceptions, a 20th Century phenomena. Migration on any sizable level only occurred because of climate changes, long before nationhood even existed.

A4 said “Nations vigorously defend against illegal intruders to maintain civility, stability and security for their citizens.” Had A4 said, “Nations vigorously defend against intruders for security for their Rulers”, that kind of action goes back to before recorded history.

A4 said, ”That is the reason you cannot name a single developed and civilized nation that allows illegals to cross their borders at will.”.. Well A4, you could not be more wrong. Every country that became major country during and after the 13th Century became great because they invaded neighboring nations to capture and bring back slaves to make the King more powerful, so he could venture even farther than neighboring countries, to capture more slaves. Even Columbus brought back slaves from the Americas.

Another thing that may come as a surprise; when our Constitution, that replaced the Articles of Confederation that created the US did not grant any powers over immigration to the National Government.. Immigration was a power reserved by the States. Did you know that A4?

Even though we had open borders for over 50 years it wasn’t until 1776 when we becamr a Nation that it could be called a policy.Therefore, from 1776 until the passage of the National Origins Act of 1921 (and its final form in 1924). That is 145 years with open borders. A4 said, “Nations that do not protect their borders do not last long”. Not only did we last, the US was a major benefactor of open borders. Additionally, other nations shared this exact same historical reality. Nations like: Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, among other nations. I might also say they did not go away either.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

Again, you failed to answer the same question that I have repeated throughout our discourse.

PLEASE NAME ONE MODERN DAY, CIVILIZED, DEVELOPED NATION IN THE WORLD THAT CURRENTLY MAINTAINS AN OPEN BORDERS NATIONAL POLICY?

Obviously, the answer is clear that you can't name such a country - because it doesn't exist. You dance around the question but fail to specifically respond.

Yet if your theory was correct - that illegal migrants produce a 'net gain'- all nations would open their borders immediately to generate an economic competitive advantage in a world where resources are a a premium and nations fight for economic survival. For a theory to be valid it must be substantiated in the real world, Mr. McGlawn. If not one civilized nation practices open borders - your hypothesis that illegal migrants produce 'net gains' and are good for society cannot be given serious consideration.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"No, I mean George J. Borjs"

Well, in your 11-6 post @ 10:46pm you said:

"But if the fact that almost every economists, including the most vociferous anti illegal immigrationist, Georg Borst say that illegal immigration is a net gain to the US, and you don't get it"

It is impossible for me to respond intelligently if you provide erroneous names.

Any economist who says illegal migrants are 'net gains' either has a certain agenda or has lost his common sense.

Again, California alone spends $20 billion a year on social services for illegals who reside in our state. Why don't the economist address that FACT in their calculations? And why don't you address it in our debate?

Mr. McGlawn said:

"You may be surprised to know immigration control is, with very few exceptions, a 20th Century phenomena"

There is a reason for that. We have 7 billion humans on the planet today with limited resources. We cannot live like we lived in 1640 and survive. We cannot take care of the world's indigent population. We are already saturated with indigents. It is breaking our economic backbone. We have 46 million on food stamps alone. Do you want to increase that number to 100 million?

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Even Columbus brought back slaves from the Americas"

We already have a nation of economic slaves. Why would you want more? We have a LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAM in place. Why would you want illegal workers when foreigners are willing to play by the rules and apply for work visas? Why would you want potential foreign criminals laden with sickness and disease coming into your country unchecked? You made absolutely no sense.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Therefore, from 1776 until the passage of the National Origins Act of 1921 (and its final form in 1924). That is 145 years with open borders"

My grandparents arrived from the old country on a boat and were processed and screened by immigration authorities in the late 1800's. So I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Even back then the nation understood the importance of controlled immigration. You want to take us back to the days of the Mayflower and the pilgrims of the 17th century. This is 2011, Mr. McGlawn. Not 1620.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Nations like: Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, among other nations"

All those nations have very strict immigration policies today. And for good reason. They want to survive economically.

Have you had enough yet, Mr. McGlawn?

Anonymous said...

Did you take a break today to catch your breath, Mr. McGlawn?

If I am bomarding you with too much information in one sitting let me know. I will shift down into second. :)

I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a taco today. :)

Chuckest said...

Hello A4

I am going to end this exercise in futility with, "Over 100 economist (Nay, MOST economist) say "illegal immigration is a "NET GAIN" to the US.

You have side stepped that assertion, distorted my statements, jumped to absurd conclusions that you try to link to a statement I made, and demonstrated that you are not going to be swayed by facts. You just keep coming back to, "THEN WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE?" Let me ask you A4, if I could name one civilized nation (even more than one) would you change your mind about a more sensible Immigration Policy than the one we have in place now?

I think your answer would be "NO" I think you have "Drank the Kool-Aid". You have made up your mind, and nothing will change it.

So I will no longer be wasting my time. Therefore, I will stop confusing you with facts, since your mind is already made up.

The only reply from you, to which I will honor is "If you can name one civilized nation (even more than one) I would change my mind about a more sensible Immigration Policy than the one we have in place now?"

If you post any other reply, especially distortions of what I say, I may respond, but I will delete any future post.

PS My job is education, if you would like more information about this subject, my e-mail address is Chuckest@aol.com. E-mail me I will be glad to point you toward more sane thinking.

Thank you,

Chuck McGlawn, A lifelong advocate of less government and more responsibility. As a Libertarian, I believe in America's tradition of personal liberty, individual
responsibility, respect for private property and tolerance of others. These are the
time tested traditions that have made these United States of America the greatest
nation on earth. These are the time proven traditions that have made these United
States of America the envy of the world, and the example to be followed by peace
loving peoples of any nation desiring to live free.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I am going to end this exercise in futility with, "Over 100 economist (Nay, MOST economist) say "illegal immigration is a "NET GAIN" to the US"

For every economist that says one thing - there is another who says the exact opposite. Have you read the economic forecasts from the So California university economists for the last 6 years? Well over 50% of the forecasts have been flat-out wrong. Most economists say what they are paid to say and they mold the numbers to fit their view of the world. Most are quasi politicians. So when you throw out a study by an economist and purport it to be the "truth" I can only laugh. The TRUTH is what we observe in the REAL WORLD - not in the world as it is conjured up in someone's mind.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Let me ask you A4, if I could name one civilized nation (even more than one) would you change your mind about a more sensible Immigration Policy than the one we have in place now?"

If you knew of such a modern civilized, developed nation that has proven to be a leader in economic prosperity and growth....you would have already named it. No? Why continue to play games?

Both you and I know that nations would flock to strategies proven to heighten sovereign economic prowess. And both you and I know that virtually ZERO civilized, developed nations have opened their borders to unchecked foreigners to enter their respective nations at will. Once again, if they were "net gains" you would see open borders worldwide. In reality - we see none. This proves your hypothesis defeective.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"So I will no longer be wasting my time"

You failed to respond to important questions that went to the heart of our discussion, Mr. McGlawn. Until those questions are answered we are unfinished. And I will consider your exit as an implied admission of defeat.

"If you post any other reply, especially distortions of what I say, I may respond, but I will delete any future post"

Now that you have embraced censorship my victory is secure.

"PS My job is education...."

Education is not always an honorable pursuit. It depends upon the message communicated to the student. Is is accurate? Is it based on fact or fiction? Is it flexible for revision if it cannot be substantiated in the World as we know it? Education can be incredibly positive or incredibly negative - contingent upon the messenger.

Thank you for an insightful learning experience, Mr. McGlawn. :)

Chuckest said...

To A4,

I repeat, You just keep coming back to the same question, "THEN WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE?" Let me ask you A4, if I could name one civilized nation (even more than one) would you THEN OPEN your mind TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A MORE sensible Immigration Policy than the one we have in place now. AND THE IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE IF YOU WERE THE LAWMAKER?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chuckest said...

Dear Readers,

A4 responded to my challenge, but he changed the rules slightly, (something I can live with) but withheld his endorsement of a more sensible immigration policy. I was not satisfied, below is what I demand from A4 for me revealing more than two nations.


Mr. McGlawn said:

"Let me ask you A4, if I could name one civilized nation (even more than one) would you THEN OPEN your mind TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A MORE sensible Immigration Policy than the one we have in place now"

You would have to show me at least a couple diverse economies with GDP's in excess of $1 billion to catch my interest. We have to compare apples to apples here. Some hole in the wall agrarian society whose chief export is cumquats and fish eggs would not suffice.
I am not looking to "catch your interest" I want a complete reversal of your strident stand in opposition to a more sensible immigration policy. Remember, you asked for just one civilized nation. I can give you more than one, each with multi-billion GDP industrial nations. With that information coupled with the fact that almost every economic study agrees that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US. If you will call for a more sensible immigration policy, I will name more than two that meet your criteria.

I want your next e-mail to open with, "I will advocate a more sensible immigration policy if you can name more than two industrial nations with multi-billion GDP that have very easy entry for migrant workers."

A4, you noticed that I deleted the rest of your e-mail message, but I saved it so you will know how you have been fooled by someone about this subject.

Anonymous said...

Fascinating exchange I must say. If this were a boxing match I would score the anonymous poster ahead on points going into the 12th round with 2-knockdown 8 counts. Both boxers would have received warnings for punching below the belt. And the cut man in Mr. McGlawn's corner would be working fevorishly stitching up his eye in-between rounds. Cheerio, you two! Continue the show!

Chuckest said...

Hello Anonymous5,

I am going to call you Reff, and ask you to use Reff if you post here again.

Reff said, If this were a boxing match I would score the anonymous poster ahead on points going into the 12th round...

How can you say that the only time his gloves even touched me was when he quoted Nations with higher incomes than the US. Other than that he has never used any facts, just his opinions. Which translates into your boxing analogy to, his blows completely missed me.

I am curious what were the two knockdowns with 8 counts?

Reff said, "Both boxers would have received warnings for punching below the belt." In this exercise what constitutes "punching below the belt?

I can see how his googling of George Boras, the CEO of Financial Services for Toyoto as punching below the belt. Boras, A gentleman (if he really exists)that A4 conjured up him as having input to hiring assembly line workers, and saying it would be good to get them for $8.00 per hour.

And the cut man in Mr. McGlawn's corner would be working fevorishly stitching up his eye in-between rounds. I would also like to know how you arrived at that? Or it is just an over use of the analogy?

And Reff, if you are calling this the 12th round, you must see that I just took control by telling him I can name ONE Nation, then I upped it to I can name more than One nation, and then upped to I can name more than two nations.

He conceded that that would interest him. But I, continuing to control the match, I said I wasn't looking for his interest, I was looking for a complete reversal of his found less statements. The bell for the 13th round has rung, and thus far he has not come out of his corner.

Interesting appraisal.

Chuck McGlawn said...

I do not know if the Ref even exists, But it was A4 that didn't respond to the bell for the 13th round. I promised to answer the one question that he said that I kept dodging.

But, I was sure that he had drank the kool-aid and 20 nations with very liberal immigration policy and he would still be swing blind. because he knows nothing.

A4 said repeatedly that I couldn't name one. And I insisted on a change of attitude toward immigration if I could name one. I can name more than three but he still wants to dance around his change.

Chuckest said...

Distorting the effect of immigration on the US Economy is no difficult task. Sadly the world is filled with A4s busy forwarding e-mails, and You-Tube videos, all isolated stories about some horror of immigration. Many if not most are the effects observed in an isolated place by a single observer. Many are only partially true and some are outright fabrications. You deserve a more complete picture. Professor Giovanni Peri of University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco offers that more complete view in “The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity” His research covered the effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy. He concluded:
1.Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.
2.Stimulate investment.
3.Promote specialization.
This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker without affecting the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

Professor Peri is not alone in his conclusions. A simple web search will show that MOST economist report a net gain to the US from illegal immigration. Let me add their contribution would be much greater, if while they were looking for a job, they wouldn't have to be looking over their sholders.

However, the A4s of the world have drank the kool-ade and nothing will change their minds. Therefore, I will be moving on to my next project, and to the A4s of the world, I wish for them clarity.

Chuckest said...

Dear Gentle Reader,

A4 is still posting. Accusing me of being anti-liberty because I put a limit on how much of my time he could claim, forcing me to defend statements of men way, way, way, (Did I say "way"? above my pay scale. While at the same time wanting us to prevent any new illegal immigration, and rounding up the 12 million and sending back to Mexico.

To A4, if you have anything factual, that disputes what the researcher that I quoted had to say, I will post it. Your rebuttal to the assertion that Illegal Immigration is a net gain to the US, by saying, "What he says cannot be true, if it was all nations would have open borders."

Anonymous said...

In fact, at the top of this page here, in part, is Mr. McGlawn's personal disclaimer:

"We are new at this and welcome all comments good or bad"

How's that for a laugh? Perhaps Mr. McGlawn will have to delete that sentence too! :>)

Chuckest said...

A4 I am not going to waste my time trying to change your mind. You are suffering from a disease I call Cementitis.

Anonymous said...
Under their official STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES identified in Section 1.1 - the Libertarian Party declared their position on the topic of EXPRESSION AND COMMUNICATION as follows:

"We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology"

I support your full freedom of expression. Create your own Blog and express to your heart's content.

Libertarians are also very protective of another right, that being the right of personal property. This is MY BLOG. Say something salient or sink slowly into the south.

Chuck

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

You can delete the comments - but you cannot delete the truth.

I urge you never to claim that you are an advocate of "liberty" again. Advocates of "liberty" do not suppress opinions of their opponents. It is a contradiction of terms.

Please consider my request.

Chuckest said...

I am inclined to suggest that A4 "get a life". His last four post to this site is just to say how I am not really libertarian. That is the standard approach of someone who can't discredit the message to discredit the messenger. He even stoops to censor the basic policy to accuse me of censorship. He selects only a portion of our opening statement which says in full:

As the title says, Liberty Views, and we do mean liberty views. Written mostly by the administrator, but we do accept guest authors. The only guidelines is that articles should be liberty oriented and absent the initiation of force. We are new at this and welcome all comments good or bad. If you disagree with something if you give us your e-mail we will try to substantiate our statements. Thank you, Chuck

Please note that offer to take any disagreement to an e-mail exchange. A4 doesn't want to do that he want to use our platform to espouse anti-libertarian, initiation of force on stopping free people from crossing imaginary lines drawn on a map by other men. That is not liberty. That is men in power, telling others where that can and cannot go.

I will be writing more on migration, and A4 will be welcome to disprove anything I say. However, he will not be allowed to bog the blog with non-responsive personal attacks.

Curtis said...

Hello Commenter #1 You pass off the results of this study by calling it absurd. So, it doesn't matter to you that aggregate immigration increases employment (Or I should say in our current economy reduces unemployment.). And it doesn't matter that aggregate immigration increases real wage increases. And it doesn't matter to you that aggregate immigration moves US born workers to higher paying jobs. I might add, and this should make you squirm in your seat, almost every study of the effects of "illegal" immigration reveals that there is a net gain to the US economy. Just in case you do not know what net gain means, all studies show that "illegals" produce more in tax revenues than they consume in social services. Chuck McGlawn

Emily said...

Mr. McGlawn, I am not going to allow you to keep running away from and sidestepping my arguments. Once again, if open borders and unscreened migrants crossing national boundaries at will is good for an economy - THEN WHY DOESN'T EVEN ONE CIVILIZED NATION ALLOW SUCH A PRACTICE? All civilized nations guard their borders vigorously. You can't name one that doesn't. Do you think you are smarter than all the civilized nations? If what you promote provides a "net gain" to an economy all would participate. Yet none do. Why is that, Mr. McGlawn? You need to address that question. Also, you say that all you care about is "LIBERTY" yet you fully admit that unchecked immigration is subject to the laws of 'marginal utility' which goes hand in hand with the laws of diminshing returns - meaning that at some point an illegal foreigner becomes a 'net loss' to our society. So what do you do at that point, Mr. McGlawn? Would you continue to allow unchecked migrants into the nation and destroy our economic stability in pursuit of your "LIBERTY" or would you impose sanctions and limitations on the migrants to stop their flow? Please respond to the question. Mr. McGlawn said: "The study I drew from was conducted by Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco" I am not impressed with titles like you are, especially with someone attached to the Federal Reserve. In fact, I immediately look upon such a title with great suspicion since The Fed are the ones who have largely created the financial mess we find ourselves in today. The Secretary of the Treasury is a proven tax cheat. He used to the President of the Fed Reserve of New York. So I should automatically respect and accept anything he tells us too? I should not question anything he says? Besides, Peri's research focused on LEGAL - NOT ILLEGAL - immigrants. Just because someone says something or manipulates data to push a certain agenda does not mean that I must accept what he says. Common sense in REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES tells me the exact opposite. ILLEGAL MIGRANTS ARE NET LOSSES. That is why not even ONE OTHER CIVILIZED NATION allows unchecked and unauthorized migrants in their countries. If it were a good thing ALL NATIONS WOULD DO IT!!!! Mr. McGlawn said: "THE REASON THAT I SUPPORT A MORE SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY" No. You believe in LIBERTY for illegal migrants. You believe in financial tyranny over the American citizens and taxpayers. You believe in punishing the rule followers to generate LIBERTY for the ruler breakers. Your position is crystal clear. "So tell me A4 what is it about illegal immigration that raises your ire?" It destroys national sovereigty by punishing good law-abiding, productive American citizens while rewarding illegal parasites who violate federal statutes and labor laws that were enacted to maintain a stable and civilized society. "I am showing my name, and everyone else is anonymous. So who is running away?" Being anonymous does not equate with "running away". Just because you CHOOSE to show your name does not make your opinion superior to an anonymous poster's opinion. It is the quality and the integrity and the veracity and the accuracy of an opinion that measures it's greatness. Not the name behind it.