April 4, 2013

Immigration & real estate: "twin get-the-rich-richer-quick-schemes"

As I've been pointing out this week, in the rest of the English-speaking world, the intellectual tide is moving against mass immigration.

Ed West, author of The Diversity Illusion, writes in The Telegraph:
In David Goodhart’s new book The British Dream he argues that “Hampstead liberals” like himself got it wrong over immigration and chose universalism (looking after the whole world) over looking after their fellow citizens. 
I’ve also got a book out (I might have mentioned it once or twice), and in it I argue that the Right is also responsible, too willing to see mass immigration as an economic benefit while ignoring the social costs. 
The pro-globalisation Conservative view of immigration tends to be that: 
a. If we have free markets we must have free movements of people. 
b. Fears about jobs are based on the lump-of-labour fallacy. 
c. If we’re short of houses, we should build more houses (besides which immigrants account for a small proportion of social housing). 
d. In order to grow, the economy requires more immigrants. 
Although many Liberal Democrats and a small number of Labour politicos hold this opinion, I would argue that it’s an economically liberal, Right-wing view. 
Look at it this way: imagine that Britain had had mass immigration from the 1860s onwards. How do you think the rights of British workers would have panned out over the late 19th and early 20th century? Would housing conditions have universally improved as far as they did? Would inequality have declined? ...
It’s been too easy for Conservatives to see immigrants simply as good workers at reasonable prices, without looking at the short-term economic or long-term social costs. 
Regarding to wages, most of the commentariat are not threatened by immigration, because to become a columnist or radio presenter requires culturally specific skills that immigrants do not posses. But in many industries the availability of cheap immigrant labour has kept wages down. 
Likewise, many Conservatives feel that if we have free trade we should have free movement of people. Why, exactly? Japan’s foreign trade is worth $1,678 billion a year, and they manage to do without much immigration. Britain’s trade expanded exponentially in the 19th century without much internal movement. Out of principle? The reason it’s okay to move around goods but not people is because once we’re finished with goods we can chuck them out; we can’t do the same with people, who marry and have children and have rights and agency and humanity. 
One of the arguments I often hear is that, although immigration over the last 15 years has been wonderful and smashing and everything, what we didn’t do is prepare for the expansion by building the houses. And yet the people expressing this view tend to live in upmarket parts of London, exactly the areas that will not be troubled. Few people want more housing on their back door; almost no one wants social housing. You can’t just say, “hey presto, build!” ...
Finally, we have the argument that the economy will only continue to grow if we import more people. I can see one small problem with this idea. Like all Ponzi schemes, it has to end at some point. The closest parallel is that other Thatcherite yellow brick road, the housing market; last week Chancellor George Osborne signalled his cunning plan to revive our fortunes by re-inflating the housing bubble and so make housing ever more unaffordable for millions of people. 
Many Conservatives have put their faith in a low-wage, high-churn economy based on the twin get-the-rich-richer-quick-schemes of mass immigration and property inflation. Both of these policies continue to lead to ever expanding inequality levels, static or even declining spending power towards the bottom of society, and shifting sands for those struggling in the middle. Personally, that's not a society I feel very comfortable living in.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many Conservatives have put their faith in a low-wage, high-churn economy based on the twin get-the-rich-richer-quick-schemes of mass immigration and property inflation.

What I find infuriating and stupid is these sorts of 'conservatives' (what are they conserving?) seem to naturally assume they and theirs will remain at the top of the pile as this immigration process unfolds.

Why? Because they so much more talented/intelligent/entrepreneurial? And their kids will be too? They never seem to be able to explain exactly. But somehow they are never going to be negatively affected by immigration now and their kids wont be in the future. Somehow.

Anonymous said...

Immigration-fueled "growth" is actually worse than a ponzi scheme. It is like a ponzi scheme in that it relies upon an unsustainable expansion dynamic for its ostensible success. Unlike a ponzi scheme, however, most of the people who are already in the society get screwed the worst--through diluted voting power, higher asset prices (including shelter), overcrowding, higher crime, loss of their ethnic and national identity, greater uncertainty (as the bubble nears collapse), corrosion of human solidarity and community, and, ultimately, loss of their country.

Anonymous said...

Way OT, but saw Magic Johnson talking about his son's recent coming out. The kid is super flamboyant, limp-wristed, purse-carrying and all. As usual, Magic was unflappable.

I wonder if there's ever been a study that has looked at any possible correlation between parental number of sexual contacts and incidence of homosexual offspring.

Anonymous said...

Somewhat related there is news about a strike in NYC by McDonalds workers.

"It's not enough," Elba Godoy, a crew member at a McDonald's just a few blocks from Times Square, said of her $7.25-per-hour minimum wage, which helps support her extended family of seven. "They don't like [that we're out here], but we have to do it. We cannot survive on $7.25."

Godoy and her colleagues are seeking a raise to $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. The walkout is part of a national movement by low-wage workers to raise wages and gain rights.


So they want to go from $7 to $15 per hour. What chance do they think this will happen if amnesty passes, or if their elected leaders continue to ignore border enforcement?

The democrats are found of that book 'What's the Matter with Kansas', where they criticize poor whites for voting against their economic interests when they vote GOP. Well the same should be asked of these strikers and tens of millions of other low end democrat voters. Amnesty and more legal immigration is only going to keep them poor.

eah said...

...chose universalism (looking after the whole world) over looking after their fellow citizens.

Huh? This strikes me as borderline absurd. What kind of idiot 'chooses to look after the whole world'? I think a better explanation -- and one that you yourself have at times generally offered, Mr Sailer -- is that the whole hideous business was (and still is) driven largely by the morality play that modern racially sensitive political correctness has become. Pretending not to notice the race/ethnicity of the new neighbors, or that it matters, was a way for some to show their moral superiority. This is why the first (and often the only, because it's enough) reaction is to call anyone who does notice a racist or xenophobe -- these are moral failings. If you are a racist or a xenophobe, you are not a good person.

Anonymous said...

Ed West is a fan of iSteve.

Perhaps Steve (and his contributors) are starting to move the debate Steve's way.

Anonymous said...

Re:

The McDonald's 'strike'.

What a load of tosh! can't the McDonald's staff realise that a disppointed customer will simply go to Burger King instead, thus nuffifying their strike?

Greed is God said...

If immigration is so economically beneficial, it wouldn't need to take place, because all immigrants would already be living in economically "vibrant" states. The fact that they're not and that they wish to move to the West is proof that they will bring with them exactly the "culture" that means their homelands aren't economically successful. Or successful in other, somewhat important ways. Somalia is a good example. And which "conservative" politician in either the UK or US has ever pointed out the economic, social and cultural lunacy of allowing immigration from Somalia?

Pink Arrow Gal said...

steve wrote:
"Immigration & real estate: "twin get-the-rich-richer-quick-schemes"
As I've been pointing out this week, in the rest of the English-speaking world, the intellectual tide is moving against mass immigration."

=====================

Correct. But are you not curious about why this is happening in europe and not in america? Is there some reason for this difference between europe and america on immigration? Some forces in play that cause this difference?
Random chance?

When an apple falls from a tree, does it usually fall in a certain direction, or does the direction of its fall go in a random direction? Why or why not?

steve wrote:

Ed West, author of The Diversity Illusion, writes in The Telegraph:

In David Goodhart’s new book The British Dream he argues that “Hampstead liberals” like himself got it wrong over immigration and chose universalism (looking after the whole world) over looking after their fellow citizens.
=======================

Why do you think they 'chose' universalism? Random chance?

You are not curious about these things? Is your forum not a place for discussing ideas? Why is it so rare that people, when discussing immigration or other political issues, ever think about what forces were in play to cause these situations?

hey, I got an ideer! maybe those liberals made that choice because it made them feel good about themselves. Why is that? Um...maybe in school they were told that in order to be a good person you had to be concerned about the poor suffering nonwhites of the world? Ok. So why was that sort of stuff taught in school? Um...let's see.....Ah, let's start from the angle of why all those schools were teaching the same thing, anyway. Um....central...something...um...centralized....something...centralized curriculum!?? Whattaya think? Have there been centralized curriculum instituted that all taught more or less the same thing?

Hmm....could there be forces that shape curricula just like there are forces that cause apples to fall down to the earth instead of just in a random direction?

Well, why was that? And how and why did the ideas that got into the centralized curriculum get in there in the first place?

Back to european nations vs america: what differences are there that might cause the media and governments there to better reflect and carry out the will of their citizens?

Hmmm...what about european nations is different from america? Hmm...hey, what about differing sizes of nations? Could it be that smaller nations are more democratic? Well, why is that?

Say...why am I the only american on the internet who thinks like this on political discussions? Am I insane? Am I retarded?
Am I an alien?

Peter the Shark said...

these sorts of 'conservatives' (what are they conserving?) seem to naturally assume they and theirs will remain at the top of the pile as this immigration process unfolds.

Why? Because they so much more talented/intelligent/entrepreneurial?


I think that is precisely the assumption. And think how much safer your progeny will be from competition if they are competing with lower IQ immigrant populations rather than with the people of the same genetic make up as you. A lot of rich conservatives seem enamored of the "South American" model. You would think the history of social unrest and violence in societies where a high IQ imported elite tried to lord it over a large lower IQ native population (Russia pre-1917, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mexico, etc.) might be a lesson that trying to lord it over an imported lower IQ population isn't going to work any better.

Anonymous said...

True, Bushes's Texas was not impacted because of lending laws, lots of land and high property tax values on property can be assesed to 6th percerage while in California prop 13 frozed assetments of property at 2 percent. Conservatives say no income tax and this might be better than low property taxes but getting California's Republicans that admire Texas to get rid of prop 13 and go for no state income tax is hard.

Anonymous said...

Well, when the looms got to big with kids to handle, the Irish took the place of kids but our right most of the 19th century immirgation was in England limited to Irish.

Anonymous said...

It's not enough," Elba Godoy, a crew member at a McDonald's just a few blocks from Times Square, said of her $7.25-per-hour minimum wage, which helps support her extended family of seven. "They don't like [that we're out here], but we have to do it. We cannot survive on $7.25."

Godoy and her colleagues are seeking a raise to $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. The walkout is part of a national movement by low-wage workers to raise wages and gain rights.
Well, in Orange County and Los Angeles whites are rarely thought to do fastfood unless they are 16 or 18 years old in some wealthier communties. In La and the OC lower income whites are limited to retail stores because someone needs to speak english or telemarketing since you need to speak english.

Anonymous said...

The pro-globalisation Conservative view of immigration tends to be that:

a. If we have free markets we must have free movements of people.

b. Fears about jobs are based on the lump-of-labour fallacy.

c. If we’re short of houses, we should build more houses (besides which immigrants account for a small proportion of social housing).

d. In order to grow, the economy requires more immmirgantion. THis is the view of Grover Norquist, Cato, George W Bush and Rand Paul. Tea Party people are nuts to like Rand Paul.

Anonymous said...

Republicans are in the US mainly in rural areas take Kevin MCCarthy who represents Kern County, the people with money are big agricultural firms or oil interest. The big agri interest give MCCarthy lots of money to opposed e-verify. Kern's whites poverty rate is only a 1 above La County whites, so whites are not that poor but there is a lot of poverty since you have a very low skilled Hispanic population and the jobs are limited to oil or agricultural.

Anonymous said...

There other factors, Seattle which has a less percnetage of foreign born around 18 percentage versus Houston around 27 percent real estate is higher, there are other factors. California is different let's say if Hispanic immirgants did moved into Anaheim or Santa Ana their rents would be about 200 to 300 dollars less since a lot of the white population had left as well.

Anonymous said...

Well, most whites in Kansas are not poorer than whites in many blue states like New York, cost of living is a factor. This is why when Democratics attack the south whites still vote Republican because in most southern states white poverty is only 2 to 3 percent higher than many blue states or lower in the case of Texas and the cost of living is not factored in. Texas's poverty problems are the same as blue state California, way too many Hispanics.

Anonymous said...

"One of the arguments I often hear is that, although immigration over the last 15 years has been wonderful and smashing and everything, what we didn’t do is prepare for the expansion by building the houses. And yet the people expressing this view tend to live in upmarket parts of London, exactly the areas that will not be troubled."

I think there's so much potential for poison-pill tongue-in-cheek amendments to be offered to amnesty legislation by a sufficiently brave congressman. Perhaps Steve King or Lou Barletta?

I would offer an amendments to build federally subsidized low-income housing specifically for unskilled immigrants...in the 100 wealthiest zip codes in the country.

I would create a program to bus Mexican peasant kids into the top public (i.e., de-facto private) school districts in the country.

Mass immigration will stop when the upscale liberals and business RINOs see their communities being degraded, and not a moment before.

Anonymous said...

Well, Steve misses the cheaper housing and less immirgant Valley area of La, and the very middle class Orange County and San Diego of the 1980's. Politicans including conservative ones in the Valley, or Orange County or San Diego didn't think of how high immmirgation and high houusing costs will impact the white population which moved to get a nice big house somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

“The liberal-counterculture Democrats will of course continue fighting this war in the schools and through the media, but have only one major demographic weapon to counter the fertility gap that is working relentlessly against them. That weapon is illegal immigration. As the population trends move steadily conservative, the liberals must bring into the country and enfranchise new voters who will reliably cast Democratic ballots. That, and that alone, is the real issue in the battle over immigration and why the Democrats are so bent on gaining amnesty for illegals. All the rest is window dressing.”


That's Investors Business Daily as quoted on Instapundit. Even the idiotic libertarians are starting to see the light - a few decades too late, but they are starting to see it.

Anonymous said...

Economic liberals and social conservatives have had an unnatural alliance for about a century. In fact their interests are opposed.

countenance said...

Anonymous, 4/4 11:20 PM:

Magic is "so proud" of his son. All his son did is what virtually every postpubescent individual does, pick an orientation.

OTOH, the alternate orientation community wants us not to dwell on orientation so that we don't "discriminate" against them. OTOH, the alternate orientation community demands that we be "proud" of all of their people for having made the orientation choice they made.

Anonymous said...

"That's Investors Business Daily as quoted on Instapundit. Even the idiotic libertarians are starting to see the light - a few decades too late, but they are starting to see it."

Wow. I have not looked at instapundit for nearly ten years. I stopped reading after this post (and the link).

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/36467/

Anonymous said...

I mean moved out the illegals from Santa Ana and Anaheim since whites have moved out as well, therefore rent would be cheaper in Santa Ana and Anaheim with less illegals.

Hunsdon said...

PAG: Brevity is the soul of wit. Your closing schtick is already wearying.

Cail Corishev said...

That's Investors Business Daily as quoted on Instapundit. Even the idiotic libertarians are starting to see the light - a few decades too late, but they are starting to see it.

Makes you wonder: why now? Nothing has changed, no new information has come to light. The pro-Democrat voting patterns of immigrants have been well established for more than a decade now. It's been clear to anyone willing to look at the numbers that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians lose ground every time a new batch are amnestied or an anchor baby is born. Why (assuming this wasn't a fluke) are they suddenly figuring out what's been obvious for years?

And will more mainstream outlets be blasted with charges of racism for repeating facts that have gotten people like Steve put on hate-lists?

john marzan said...

The pro-globalisation Conservative view of immigration tends to be that:

d. In order to grow, the economy requires more immigrants.


your favorite asian, lee kuan yew actually believes this, and his invited "foreign talents" to singapore.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1142473/1/.html

john marzan said...

even the HK has a guest worker program that the USA is trying to copy.

David said...

Britain is broke, so we're hearing a bit of mild talk about previously rather touchy subjects now. But don't expect to see any action, except in the direction of more immigration. It's called path dependency. After a certain point, you can't put down that glass of Scotch.

Anonymous said...

But don't expect to see any action, except in the direction of more immigration. It's called path dependency. After a certain point, you can't put down that glass of Scotch.

Could you elaborate on this theory and analogy as they touche on immigration?

Anonymous said...

d. In order to grow, the economy requires more immigrants.

your favorite asian, lee kuan yew actually believes this, and his invited "foreign talents" to singapore.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1142473/1/.html


I wasn't able to access your link, but I am going to guess Open Borders America and Lee Kuan Yew are talking about two very different things.

The people in power in the United States (Wall Street, federal politicians, the Beltway policy elites, and certain ethnocentric and paranoid U.S. residents of Middle Eastern extraction) see immigration as a necessary means of supporting aggregate demand in the U.S. economy, the slackening of which would threaten to expose the economic, budgetary, and social ponzi schemes that are keeping the American people sedated and pacified while they are being conquered by foreigners and replaced.

Mr. Lee is probably talking about bringing in highly skilled people who in theory could give Singapore a comparative advantage vis a vis other nations in trade and commerce.

Anonymous said...

"What I find infuriating and stupid is these sorts of 'conservatives' (what are they conserving?) seem to naturally assume they and theirs will remain at the top of the pile as this immigration process unfolds."

1) They're not conservatives at all. They're globalists who hijacked the conservative party.

2) They think they got to the top solely because of relative brain power and not because of relative ethnic nepotism.

They'll find out they were wrong when the equally ethnically nepotistic groups they imported compete by the same methods they do.

john marzan said...

here's the cached version

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u_Jh3lRpj2QJ:www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1142473/1/.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph

Anonymous said...

your favorite asian, lee kuan yew actually believes this, and his invited "foreign talents" to singapore.


A) He's not my favorite Asian.

B) He's not in favor in throwing open the borders of Singapore to anyone who can walk/swim there, which is the current "immigration policy" of TPTB in the US.

David said...

>could you elaborate<

Path dependence

The premise is that you can't expect an individual or a nation to make a turn-around in all cases. There is a point of no return. The link explains it pretty well. For the free will people: it's the very efficacy of free will that gives such power to choices, including past choices.

My opinion is that, to coin a phrase, "we are doomed." (HT: the Derb)

Actually I think we will survive and thrive in the long run, but not in our current political structures or even geographical locations. Those configurations are what is doomed, IMO.

eh said...

have not looked at instapundit for nearly ten years ...after this post

LOL. The anti-immigration position is wrong because his brother married a Nigerian woman.

Anonymous said...

The premise is that you can't expect an individual or a nation to make a turn-around in all cases. There is a point of no return.

Why are we at a point of no return?

E. Rekshun said...

Suburban Disequilibrium, NYT, 04/06/13

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/suburban-disequilibrium/?ref=todayspaper

"...Today’s suburbs provide a map not just to the different worlds of the rich and the poor, which have always been with us, but to the increase in inequality between economic and social classes..."

"...Policies to redress suburban inequality must focus not only on factors like income but also on tax equity across metro areas and regional planning that fairly distributes resources and responsibilities (like affordable housing)..."

E. Rekshun said...

@Anon: "...Magic Johnson talking about his son's recent coming out..."

In 1991, Magic Johnson publicly announced that he had "attained the HIV virus."

The media has never inquired as to how that happened. Biologically, it's nearly certain that Johnson acquired HIV via homosexual sex.

Like father, like son, but the father has remained in the closet.