In The New York Times magazine, this Harvard economist is a strong advocate of open borders, or barring that, guest workers:
About 7 percent of
the rich world’s jobs are held by people from developing countries. For
starters, he would like to see the poor get another 3 percent, or 16
million guest-worker jobs – 3 million in the U.S. They would stay three
to five years, with no path to citizenship, and work in fields with
certified labor shortages. He assumes that most receiving countries
would not allow them to bring families. Taxpayers would be spared from
educating the migrants’ kids. Domestic workers would gain some
protection through the certification process.In effect, Pritchett
is proposing a Saudi Arabian plan in which an affluent society creates
a labor subcaste that is permanently excluded from its ranks…he
estimates his plan would produce annual gains of about $300 billion –
three times the benefit of removing the remaining barriers to trade.
He considers nationalism an "atavistic prejudice," but I think it is, at least for the time being, a necessary atavistic prejudice. People will identify with some political unit or other and the current alternatives to nationalism usually are worse (my unverified theory is that Pritchett’s Mormon background plays a role in his views). The key question is how many more people we can take in before this constraint starts to bite.
Not unrelated is this NYT article on the evolution of Larry Summers.
Why don’t we see more economists and politicians speaking out about needing fewer restrictions, more legal immigration, less government red tape in deciding what industries are really in need of labor?
Let’s make it super easy for immigrants to enter legally and stay as long as they want, and do whatever work they find. If being legal were so easy, there would be almost zero illegals. The only people who would do so are the dangerous criminals, knowing they wouldn’t pass security checks. Border enforcement can concentrate on these much rarer cases and do so more effectively.
If people cry about how much they cost our schools and hospitals, let’s cut the mandatory provision of education and health care. Or if compromise is needed, allow new immigrants to enter under condition of foregoing them. Then who can complain about immigrants?
“I really can’t see how importing people to mow lawns will help the economy of either country.”
Really? I suspect that’s the crux of the problem here. Hiring said people (gardeners, nannies, etc) frees one’s time enormously and allows one to more productively spend one’s time (shouldn’t females be especially pro-immigration at least on this regard, i.e. making it easier to have a family and a career?)
This guy is a psychopath, how do these f**ks get to have any influence over policy?
In fact, this guy should write in the media more, it would show the American people what greedy, flagless morons a good proportion of economists are. While others skirt around the issue this guy comes right out and says it – lets import serfs!
Come on Prichett! PLEEEEEEEASE write some more! Let the American people see the twisted malice at the heart of the open borders lobby. Nationalism is prejudice? Right, if a war ever comes and the nation needs to be moboilized, make sure this guy gets no protection.
A spell in the army would do economists the world of good.
I am baffled by the pro-immigration side. Isn’t “nationalism” just a form of local control, and isn’t controlling your boarders just about the weakest from of “nationalism” there is? How does one guarantee that the guest workers wouldn’t have a path to citizenship in today political and legal climate, let alone cut off their education and health care?
Tyler, perhaps you could help shed your open boarders rep, by explaining what metrics you would want to use measure the “immigration bite”. Currently you discounts the public anger as either nativist or xenophobic, and considers the 8% decrease in low income wages to be small?
Ben, think about it: if no one’s doing the work (that is, if I’m mowing the lawn or taking care of the kids by myself), then there are no wages to be lowered. No one is getting paid to do that work. Instead, I’m doing it myself instead of doing something else (something that, for the vast majority of Americans, would pay better and be a more productive use of time). Bringing in people who will do this work for the wages that Americans are willing to pay thus ends up creating jobs, making Americans themselves more productive, and doesn’t lower wages — since no wages were being paid in the first place.
As for that 8% reduction in low-income wages, even according to Borjas that’s only in the short term — in the long run, the reduction is about half of that. And it’s not even clear that that’s the real effect — Giovanni Peri’s work convincingly suggests that immigration boosts the wages of most Americans and has only a very small negative effect on Americans who don’t have a high-school education (who constitute less than 10 per cent of the workforce).
No one is getting paid to do that work. Instead, I’m doing it myself instead of doing something else (something that, for the vast majority of Americans, would pay better and be a more productive use of time).
If you’re not hiring the marginal gardener at current wages, then your alternative use of time must be less productive. While some particular employment of low-wage workers may be very productive, their marginal productivity is quite low. Importing more of them further lowers the margin of production and yields little benefit to the economy.
Adrian: “Come on Prichett! PLEEEEEEEASE write some more! Let the American people see prejudice? Right, if a war ever comes and the nation needs to be moboilized, make sure this guy gets no protection.”
Adrian, your own language suggests an substantially high level of fanaticism. Is that the impression you intend to make?
RE: Tim V,
Is it really free trade if the immigrants are net tax drains and making the decision to exchange their labor not only for their direct wages but also the third party benefits they receive from various levels of government?
Re: K Williams,
I think guest answered better than I could, but you seem to ignore the option that instead of doing it yourself (even if you currently do), you could hire an American. If thats too expensive, why should the government subsidize your labor costs. Also subsidized labor distorts the market, I could see a maid/nanny freeing an American to participate in the workforce, but I could also see someone using a yard service for more leisure time.
Tyler, likes the idea of the cost of living in the US to be a check on immigration, thus allowing “open” boarders, but this is in direct conflict with the US social welfare safety net that is geared toward making sure everyone can live in the US.
Tyler, likes the idea of the cost of living in the US to be a check on immigration, thus allowing “open” boarders, but this is in direct conflict with the US social welfare safety net that is geared toward making sure everyone can live in the US.
The worstpart of this is that the resulting increases in cost of living would be either a deadweight loss (e.g. more crime, lowered quality of life), or disappear into parasitic rent.
Would open borders do poor countries all that much good? What we see is that countries with high rates of emigration tend to be corrupt and inefficient underperformers, such as Mexico and the Philippines.
In contrast, the vast and welcome decline in the percentage of poor people in the world over the last generation has largely been driven by internal reforms in countries with low percentages of emigration: China and India, most notably.
Immigrants not only lower nominal wages, but they put an increased strain on “the system.” Pretending that the immigration issue is purely a free trade issue is naive.
I don’t see any particularly strong strain on “the system” in Los Angeles, a place with high amounts of new immigrants.
Assuming we do reform our health care system such that all citizens are covered – perhaps an unrealistic assumption, but let’s pretend for a moment, shall we? – wouldn’t you see a doubling or tripling of our annual immigration #s as having other impacts? It could very well be that the real wage increase you postulate we’d see would be erased by increases in taxes to cover health care, added infrastructure, education, etc. for these immigrants.
Yes. However, there are a few points to be made. One, health care reform has little to do with immigration reform. Two, nationalized health care could lead to the exact same effects even if all immigration were magically stopped and reversed back, say 10 years.
The point is, open borders/free trade advocates seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are ancillary effects.
Anti immigration/free trade advocates seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are positive effects of higher rates of immigration.
Without open borders, over 20% of all Mexicans now live in the U.S. With open borders, about 35% of all Puerto Ricans now live in the 50 states, and the influx was finally stemmed only through enormous tax breaks and transfer payments from the 50 states to Puerto Rico estimated at $22,000 annually per family of four!
Yet somehow, the economy is strong and unemployment low. How can this be?
Would open borders do poor countries all that much good? What we see is that countries with high rates of emigration tend to be corrupt and inefficient underperformers, such as Mexico and the Philippines.
And this is bad because….?
Like jared, I was wondering what Tyler saw as the alternatives “worse” than nationalism.
In the US context, what are the drawbacks of sapping nationalism?
Shecky wrote:
I don’t see any particularly strong strain on “the system” in Los Angeles
Are you sure you’re looking? LA County is facing a budget deficit of more than 1 billion dollars.
Link
Now thats not entirely due to illegal immigration, but where do you think a lot of 2.9 million uninsured in LA county are coming from. The system in LA is definitely under strain, saying otherwise is crazy talk. Moody’s Investor Service, is placing their long term credit rating under review. Wouldn’t that be a market signal?
“I don’t see any particularly strong strain on “the system” in Los Angeles, a place with high amounts of new immigrants.”
Talk to an emergency room employee.
癌症 肺癌 胃癌 è‚癌 食管癌 肿瘤 ç›´è‚ ç™Œ ç»“è‚ ç™Œ 宫颈癌 乳腺癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 å‰åˆ—腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 æ¶æ€§æ·‹å·´ç˜¤ 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌
Comments on this entry are closed.