tags: immigrants, employment, labor, politics
As Congress debates an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, several economists and news media pundits have sounded the alarm, contending that immigrants are causing harm to Americans in the competition for jobs. But are they?
[A] more careful examination of the economic data suggests that the argument is, at the very least, overstated. There is scant evidence that illegal immigrants have caused any significant damage to the wages of American workers.
The number that has been getting the most attention lately was produced by George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz, two Harvard economists, in a paper published last year. They estimated that the wave of illegal Mexican immigrants who arrived from 1980 to 2000 had reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the United States by 8.2 percent. But the economists acknowledge that the number does not consider other economic forces, such as the fact that certain businesses would not exist in the United States without cheap immigrant labor. If it had accounted for such things, immigration's impact would be likely to look less than half as big.
In their paper, they found;
- Over the last quarter-century, the number of people without any college education, including high school dropouts, has fallen sharply
- Businesses and other economic agents have adjusted to immigration, by making changes that have muted much of immigration's impact on American workers
- No wage differences could be attributed to the presence of illegal immigrants
Borjas said that while the numbers were not large, the impact at the bottom end of the skill range was significant. "It is not a big deal for the whole economy, but that hides a big distributional impact," he said.
Others disagree. "If you're a native high school dropout in this economy, you've got a slew of problems of which immigrant competition is but one, and a lesser one at that," said Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. [NYTimes]
I agree that the problems with employment in this country stem from effects other than immigrants -- legal or illegal. Basically, most immigrants work at the worst, lowest-paying, unskilled and often, most unsafe jobs that are available. Illegal immigrants in particular, often live in small, cramped, filthy conditions provided by their employers -- conditions that most Americans wouldn't tolerate -- so they can keep their living expenses low. I have yet to see an illegal immigrant trying to take a good-paying job away from an American -- a job that actually pays a living wage.
Here is another study showing that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans, and they pushed natives up the economic ladder into employment that required more English or know-how of the U.S. system.
- Log in to post comments
I wonder if a study has been done to assess the impact of illegal immigrants on public programs directed to such areas as education, medical and welfare.
I wonder if a study has been done to assess the impact of outsourcing of jobs to other countries as well.
Clapping
Chardyspal
I wonder if a study has been done to assess the impact of illegal immigrants on public programs directed to such areas as education, medical and welfare.
A number of such studies have been done. I have a few PDF's of some of the more interesting ones, but can't find open-access versions (i got them through my school library).
One is from the University of Texas at Austin, titled "Country of Origin, Type of Public Assistance, and Patterns of Welfare Recipiency Among U.S. Immigrants and Natives" and was published in Social Science Quarterly. It discusses differences b/t Hispanic immigrants versus political refugees, and how the likelihood of public assistance changes over time since immigration. Good stuff - try googling it.
It is also worth mentioning that illegal immigrants using fake SS numbers are paying into SS, yet can't claim benefits. Hrm.
You have GOT to be kidding me! "No wage differences could be attributed to the presence of illegal immigrants"???
It is FACT that wages at the Swift Meat Packing Plant have gone down in the last 10 years while other industries the wages have gone up. What kind of moron is so dense that they cannot see that
a) illegal aliens will work for very little money
b) employers would rather pay very little money
c) Americans can't live on the wages paid to illegals
d) Americans are then cut out of that job because they will not work for dirt
e) all workers in that industry will have to take less money so that company can compete with the hiring of illegals WHETHER OR NOT THEY HIRE ILLEGALS
You must have flunked Economics 101.
Plentiful cheap labor depresses wages. It's FACT. Stop peddling your propaganda!!
Furthermore - why don't you ask people with small businesses in landscaping and construction who cannot compete if they don't hire illegals? They are losing bids because they are paying a livable wage to their workers.
You don't need some statistician to tell us what we already know. Illegals do not belong here - we don't need them here - only big business wants them here for their slave labor.
AND if you don't realize this is an invasion by Mexico, you are really being duped by the MSM. In California we have Reconquistas who think we stole the southwest from Mexico and they think they are on THEIR land when they are in California.
Anyone who does not see the seriousness of this problem is asleep at the wheel of democracy!!!!
Ummm, we did steal their land.
"a) illegal aliens will work for very little money"
So? Unskilled labor has a very small return on investment, meaning unskilled laborers tends to work for very little money. This isn't news to anyone. What you're ignoring is that most Americans don't compete with unskilled labor.
"b) employers would rather pay very little money"
Wrong, employers would rather get adequate returns on their investments in capital and labor. Whether that entails "very little" or a lot of money depends upon the interaction of the cost and utility of hiring a person. For unskilled labor, this is typically a lower number whether or not the hires are immigrants or not.
c) Americans can't live on the wages paid to illegals
Nor do most Americans have to. We essentially have full domestic employment in this country. The fallacy you're committing is the fallacy of fixed pie, i.e., arguing that because someone gains something that someone had to "take it" from someone else.
d) Americans are then cut out of that job because they will not work for dirt
Same fallacy as above. And furthermore, "Americans" compete with one another in the marketplace as well, and thus cut each other "out of jobs" following your logic.
e) all workers in that industry will have to take less money so that company can compete with the hiring of illegals WHETHER OR NOT THEY HIRE ILLEGALS
Yes, but industries are not isolated entities. Constricting the flow of immigrant labor could severely affect their productivity, which affects other industries by proxy.
"You must have flunked Economics 101."
You must never have gone beyond it.
Just a few comments from a wage slave outside the USofA.
1st: I am a contractor, I sell my labour in the open market (literally the world market with no protection at all excepting those I can negotiate).
2nd: I am highly skilled & educated.(well my employers think so)
3rd: Companies think short term (quarterly) nowadays not longterm.
Now that is over, a tale from a world of unrestricted (well poorly controlled) labour movement.
Saudi Arabia:
Unemployment amongst men (women not counted) is estimated between 20% to 40% depending on which ministry is talking. Imported, unskilled/semi-skilled labour approx 7 million, native (Saudis) population 20 million.
So we have high Saudi unemployment and high imported labour; reason, it is cheaper to import labour than employ Saudis and also Saudi companies prefer imported labour because they can discard it on whim. The imports have no real rights, irrespective of what the law says.
This isn't solely in Saudi but also applies to UAE & Bahrain (in Bahrain approx 85% of the people living there are imports, Dubai is around the same).
Now, should Saudis work for less to compete with those from abroad? Even if they try and some have, the employer still prefers to employ those with no rights. Use 'em, abuse 'em and lose 'em.
Does this only happen at the unskilled level, far from it.
At my level I compete against Indians & South Africans & East Europeans; no trouble with that, but because their home country costs are lower they are willing to lower the market rate and have done so over the last few years (I also compete against Australians, Americans, West Europeans etc but their home costs are similar so it is not a concern).
Who, apart from the company bosses, has benefited from the lower wages?
If the field was level or even less skewed then it wouldn't be a major concern (or if it was legal for imports to Unionise/Organise). But as it presently is, unrestricted free flow of labour only benefits the rich (owners) and as rates are driven lower and lower the poor get poorer and the middle income people become poor.
Also the rights of the imported labour are fewer than those of the natives, should they forgo what are presently considered their basic rights to compete?
In the very long term, the field may level (as India & China retain more of their skilled labour at home, rates have started rising for technicians again); but in the short/medium term unrestricted labour movement is a mugs game for the majority of people in the industrialised countries.
Aren't the majority of Mexicans of Spanish descent?
If they are then you (citizens of the USA in general, not you in particular) only re-allocated land that the Spanish had confiscated from the then residents.
Land claims are a great source of tension all around the world, one sometimes wonders how long political memories are in these matters.
500 years, 1000 years, 20000 years?
When does it become a silly claim?
I don't have an answer; it just seems to be introduced into a lot of discussions nowadays, along with claims for reparations, without much thought.
"I have yet to see an illegal immigrant trying to take a good-paying job away from an American -- a job that actually pays a living wage."
While that statement might literally be true, it is also irrelevant. What Ruthiness states in post #4 above is a fact about the impact on construction and landscape wages. Wages in real dollars for such labor is far lower now than 20 years ago.
If you speak to the owner of a small construction firm or landscape business, they will tell you that illegal immigrants work for less *and* they are (on average) better workers. Even those that might be concerned about illegal immigration have to do it to be competitive, and the financial carrot is huge. The stick (penalties for hiring an illegal immigrant) is, so far, miniscule.
Whether this is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing for the US economy and for US citizens overall is a whole separate, and very political, issue. But denying the reality of wage effects in particular areas is not useful.