George Mason U. economist Tyler Cowen writes on his Marginal Revolution blog:
"I do understand the concerns raised by Steve Sailer and others against immigrants, and I readily grant that the idea of open borders is a non-starter. But is the United States today in a position where Latino immigrants are tearing us apart? I think not.
"Yes I know your anecdotes, but here is what it would take to budge me. Do a study of real estate prices in San Diego, Santa Ana (a largely Mexican part of Orange County), and the relevant sections of Houston, among other locales. Show me that real estate values in those areas are falling or even plummeting, and yes I do mean in absolute terms and no the recent collapse of the real estate bubble doesn't count. Then I'll give the issue another look. Otherwise the worst I am going to believe is that "things are not getting better as rapidly as they might otherwise be," and that, whether or not you like such a possible state of affairs, does not represent the sky falling."
I'm fascinated by how economists forget everything they know about economics when it comes time to defend immigration. Here are four Econ 101 concepts Tyler is ignoring:
1. Supply and Demand: Why would increased demand from immigration cause lower real estate prices?
2. Actual, Not Nominal, Costs: The standard way economists think (about everything except immigration) is to adjust for cost of living. Minnesota has the highest standard of living, at least in terms of things money can buy (i.e., not weather). At the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California.
3. Risk vs. Return: What is the risk that America is headed for a Netherlands-style immigration disaster? 20%, say? And what is the risk we're headed for a Kosovo-style catastrophe? 2%? Now, exactly what is the enormous upside to illegal immigration that compensates for risks that bad?
4. Opportunity Costs: Tyler writes:
"Otherwise the worst I am going to believe is that "things are not getting better as rapidly as they might otherwise be," and that, whether or not you like such a possible state of affairs, does not represent the sky falling."
That's a particularly bizarre standard for judging public policy for Tyler of all people to advocate in the light of his own blog posting of August 20, 2004:
"The importance of the growth rate increases, the further into the future we look. If a country grows at two percent, as opposed to growing at one percent, the difference in welfare in a single year is relatively small. But over time the difference becomes very large. For instance, had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990.... But in my view, if you are not supporting growth-maximizing economic policies, you better had a pretty good reason in your pocket."
What would LA be like today without 30 years of illegal immigration? Seattle with sunshine? With its enormous advantages, LA ought to be one of the finest cities in the world by now. Trust me, it's not.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
32 comments:
"Show me that real estate values in those areas are falling or even plummeting, and yes I do mean in absolute terms and no the recent collapse of the real estate bubble doesn't count."
And why is it good that housing is expensive? I'm guessing it's especially expensive in non-diverse areas, and the fewer of those there are, the more expensive and hard for the middle class to afford they will become. If there weren't a whole lot of Mexican Santa Anas, other areas would be within reach of the middle class.
"1. Supply and Demand: Why would increased demand from immigration cause lower real estate prices?"
Immigrants build housing not only consume it.
"2. Actual, Not Nominal, Costs: The standard way economists think (about everything except immigration) is to adjust for cost of living. Minnesota has the highest standard of living, at least in terms of things money can buy (i.e., not weather). At the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. "
ISteve, you seem to forget your own main issue when you make this statement. Surely for example the standard of living of the average white person in Georgia is significantly higher than for the average person in Georgia. While in Minnesota there are so few blacks that the average white person in Minnesota is not much higher than for the average person in Minnesota.
Which BTW shows how to much government intervention in the economy lowers standards of living. Consider Sweden and China countries filled with Swedes and Chinese people respectively. If given economic freedom the Swedes should have higher standards of living than we in the USA (though they do have the problem of having a less dense population and thus less division of labor) but the average standard of living there is lower than for American blacks. China with a great division of labor and people who do well wherever they go should have a standard of living at least as high as Japan. In both case government intervention/socialism have held the standard of living back.
Finally the economist is looking not only at want is good for the Americans but what is good for the immigrant. Having a degree in economics I understand where Tyler is coming from, but I also think that your work showing the Mexican immigrants children get messed up here in the USA is compelling. If being in the USA is not a great benefit to the immigrants then your position that immigration should be ended is strong.
Also I find your idea that we might be better off if Mexico goes completely socialist like Venezuela is going and Cuba is interesting. I hate to see us in USA going more and more socialist but we do much better with freedom. On the other hand the Mexicans have never had much economic freedom and are different and so they may do better under socialism. The Indians at least seem to support socialism in Venezuela.
BTW Socialism seems to be an even bigger deterrent to having children than urbanization which is the second biggest deterrent.
For instance, had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990....
The converse of this is that if America had been like Mexico -- culturally, institutionally -- then our growth rate would have been similar to theirs. Arguing for more Mexicans is arguing for Mexican policies and ultimately, Mexican growth rates.
And yet anyone visiting Sweden would be amused by the thought that US blacks have a higher standard of living than Swedes.
Maybe I just mean 'quality of life'.
I don't see how people like Cowen can miss what is obvious to any non-economist not mired in PC thinking. Common sense should tell you that a substantially dumber, less educated, less skilled population simply cannot sustain the sort of First World economy America current has. If your economic beliefs deliver you a conclusion that contradicts that reality, then most likely your perspective is flawed.
I think many economists believe being counterintuitive is an end to itself.
floccina said:
"1. Supply and Demand: Why would increased demand from immigration cause lower real estate prices?"
Immigrants build housing not only consume it."
Do immigrants build more land as well?
RE: Kevin there exists so much land that it is hardly a factor. Now you could counter - accessible buildable land but in as much as they build roads they do build accessible buildable land. BTW I have heard that there is enough land in Texas alone that the entire population of the earth could live there in single family homes. Homes just do not take up much land.
BTW more people better division of labor.
Anonymous you do mean 'quality of life'.
There's plenty of land, but most of it is in places with no cities in no jobs. If you want to live in a larger metro area, there's only plenty of land if you don't mind 2 hour commutes. Desirable plots of land are already mostly built up.
It is obvious that a bigger population means either more sprawl or more density. We have enough of both.
Interesting article on foreigners in Japan, crime and Shintaro Ishihara.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aqOSjgeKU5X8&refer=japan
I think it's kind of sad that efficient, productive, and homogenous societies like Japan can't maintain a replacement birthrate.
I really like Marginal Revolution - There's always interesting and fascinating things going on over there and some of the smartest readers around...What I will never understand is how Cowen can be so blind to reality. Possible reasons:
1. He spends too much time traveling to poor countries and probably no time travelling to the poorest schools and neighborhoods in America.
2. He is blinded by his love of culture (artwork, music, literature, architecture, etc.) and can't properly put things in perspective. If you think Salvadoran paintings and Honduran food are the best thing on god's green earth, you would probably LOVE to have people from those countries come to the US and open restaurants and galleries.
3. By virtue of working at a college, he doesn't see society's biggest (young) underachievers. That's kind of hard to say without laughing because of all the idiots that attend college these days, but still true.
4. Economists don't know how to accurately address things like IQ and the consequences of immigrants who can't assimilate into their assumptions of growth, etc...Therefore, they just marginalize the issue...
We didn't get to vote on the invasion.
That makes it wrong before any economic consieration is to even be contemplated. The public's will has been thwarted. Thats the biggest point of it all and why its so tragic. "The public be damned".
Finally the economist is looking not only at want is good for the Americans but what is good for the immigrant....
That's it: the "elites" think Mexicans or any or other foreigners are just as important as Americans.
Democracy? Voting yes or no to mass Mexican immigration? The globalist elites don't really believe in democracy. They believe that they are entitled to rule behind a veil of pseudo democracy.
A lot of middle class liberals/progressives think that they'll get inducted into the global elite by parroting the party line.
The liberal/progressive fallacy is believing that they can remain on top if North America becomes majority nonwhite. This delusion is particularly strong among Jewish leftists.
--david.davenport.1@netzero.com
I noticed Cowen has a pat trick he drags out almost every single time he discusses immigration. That trick is conflating the contributions of South and East Asian immigrants with those of Hispanics. At first, I chalked this up to ignorance or lack of attention. The error of this type of reasoning has been pointed out to him repeatedly, yet he never fails to employ it time and again. I have to conclude that when it comes to immigration, Cowen isn't merely deluded, but is genuinely dishonest.
tommy -
I've noticed that too, but I'm still perplexed...He's too smart to not observe or acknowledge differences between immigrants. Now the question becomes, why doesn't he address this matter? Self-pride? Betrayal of long-held economic beliefs? Not ready to talk about such "sensitive" issues? Any of the things I mentioned in an earlier comment? Removed from reality?
I don't get it...
aph,
I don't know what his reasoning is. I just know he is dishonest and not merely ignorant. Like you said, he is too smart to play dumb on issues like this.
Maybe people like Cowen simply look at countries like Mexico and say to themselves, "that wouldn't be so bad here." After all, it is hardly people like him who are going to have to pay the largest price for this country's wretched immigration policies. He can be expected to remain largely insulated from the carnage. Many of America's whites will do what so many of Mexico's whites have done before us: simply retreat to gated communities, largely isolated from the daily realities of their country, and still getting to be on top of their nation's social and political order. I've noticed that many self-described libertarians seem to have this kind of "rulers of the wasteland" mentality.
Still, I honestly can't say for sure.
Since San Diego and Tijuana are in the same "neighborhood," should he not have to explain why there is any difference between real estate values and living conditions in those two places?
Would he also care to compare the San Diego schools of the '70s to the schools of today? It may be as high as 47 percent of the students don't have a grasp of basic literacy (that does not count dropouts) -- sorry, I don't have the stats; I just remember feeling sick when I read them. I seriously suggest Tyler study that sick feeling.
sN
"...Swedes should have higher standards of living than we in the USA (though they do have the problem of having a less dense population and thus less division of labor) but the average standard of living there is lower than for American blacks."
This utterly wrong and bizarre statement in the comments was followed by an almost equally clueless rant about the evils of socialism. Wow, talking about the prototype of a clueless American. Hilarious. :-)
Jallabo - I am unable to locate that quote in the comments. Any source? Name of commenter who made it?
Never mind Jallabo - I thought i was in Tylers' comments ;)
I think the difference of opinion/assumption here is based on what you think is going to happen to the immigrants over time. The Irish came over with at least as much social pathology as Mexicans and Salvadorans bring now, but assimilated just fine. Likewise the Italians. So if you think the same pattern will be followed by Mexicans, you see two different pictures:
a. Straightforward economics: more people get to make more transactions they want to make, people are better off, same argument as you get for free trade.
b. Cultural differences: Immigrants start out as illiterate peasants who can't speak english but work very hard, there are a couple generations of rough transition, and we end up with a bunch of Garcias and Ortiz' as doctors, lawyers, and engineers.
Now, there are issues with (a), since the benefits of the extra transactions available are landing in a very different place than the costs. But the real issue is (b). If Mexicans and Salvadorans don't assimilate into US culture over time, then we're basically importing an underclass, which isn't real clever of us. We need to get a handle on that question.
And there are big issues with assimilating Spanish speakers in a country with enough Spanish speakers that you don't necessarily have to learn English to get by. There are big issues with the whole ideology of ethnic identity politics, with public schools that aren't nearly as good at teaching or assimilation as they were a century ago, with safety net programs that may draw a different kind of immigrant than we got a century ago or that may just provide less incentive to focus on improving your family's well-being.
The racial transformation of AMERICA via post 1965 legal and illegal immigration is the number one issue when it comes to the legitimate interests of NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS.
The racial transformation of AMERICA IS MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT AGAINST HIGH LEVELS OF NON-WHITE LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
The free market/ libertarian argument for increasing non-white legal immigration is bizzare.
It is bizarre because it claims that the majority population of AMERICA-NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIANS-THE FOLKS WHO FOUNDED AND CREATED AMERICA-CAN ONLY BE ECONOMICALLY WELL OFF IF THERE IS IN PLACE A LEGAL IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT OVER TIME WILL BRING ABOUT THE DEMOGRAPHIC ANNIHILATION OF THE MAJORITY NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN POPULATION OF AMERICA.
NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS are a better judge of their own interests than any liberal jew economist such as canadian legal immigrant David Card.
All of you predatory legal asian immigrants and your spoiled and obnoxious "american" born gene-line can go fuck yourselves. Get out of my country.
Legal asian immigrants on places such as Long Island drive up massively home prices and property taxes.
Young NATIVE BORN WHITE MALES ARE IN DIECT COMPETITION WITH YOUNG PREDATORY ASIAN MALES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING/BREEDING SPACE ON ISLAND AND MANY OTHER AREAS OF AMERICA.
Legal non-white immigrant provides 0 bennefits to ordinary NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS.
JUPITER
Albatross on your point A. If your market is 50 people I can see where expanding that would increase the the number of desirable, available transactions greatly. But if your market is a country of 300 million people, how many types of transactions are you really going to gain by importing 10, 20, 30 million people? You at least see what I mean?
There are some transactions that will always be under-available in an educated, well-to-do place though. The transactions of capital owning overlords exploiting under-educated, alienated peons who don't know any better and even if they did can't say anything lest they be deported.
It would be better if Mexican immigrants became more like us over time, but then we would be in a situation where we needed a new, separated people to become a new underpaid underclass "doing the jobs Americans don't want to do".
Nevermind the fact that a market of low Iq people must have less available desirable transactions than a market of geniuses. I'm sick of the word IQ, aren't you? But it's almost always relevant.
The case against LEGAL asian immigration is just as strong as the case against illegal mexican immigration
BRING BACK THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT
JUPITER
The case against against LEGAL asian immigration is just as strong as the case against illegal mexican immigration
"The case against LEGAL asian immigration is just as strong as the case against illegal mexican immigration
BRING BACK THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT
JUPITER"
LOL! Look at this retard. Jupiter must be where you are from.
James,
Those immigrants mostly do seem to be working, so there's apparently a set of transactions they're filling. If they're working for less money than the previous employees, then the cost of doing some things (chicken processing, construction, fast food, cleaning offices) goes down. In straight money terms, the economy wins. The same way a Wal-mart in the next town might put the local crappy hardware store out of buisness, but still make the people of the town better off overall.
It's possible this is offset by the cost of added services provided, but I doubt it.
The social effects, the stuff hard to capture in an economic model, is where I think the big potential issues for immigration are. And I think that's why most economists aren't as concerned about immigration as they should be. If a large fraction of the immigrants pool up into a self-consciously separate ethnic group, especially one that's noticeably worse off than everyone else, that has the potential to be very bad. If a continuous flow of unskilled labor helps maintain and expand an almost impossible to escape underclass, that's really bad.
NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS-the majority population that founded and created AMERICA-will do quite well without mexican slave labour.
The cheap labor bennefits America argument is continous with the pro-slavery argument.
Econometrics is largely a joke. Martin Feldstien once called it a form of black magic
NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS will do quite without the predatory legal asian legal immigrant and their obnoxious "american" born gene-line.
As for you Steve Sailer, there will be no citzenship coalition between NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS and the predatory legal legal asian immigrant and their obnoxious "american" born gene-line.
Legal asian immigrant organizations issue threats of retaliation everytime NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS attempt to shut down the H1-B job theft program.
The case against LEGAL asian immigration is just as strong as the case against against mexican illegal immigration.
All non-white immigrants should be read the riot act.
BRING BACK THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT
Jupiter
Yeah Albatross, you're right. They're making transactions. I don't know why I was trying to disagree with you.
As far as Ricardo's law though, any two groups of people will have differences in ability and willingness to work which is all it takes for comparative advantage to function. So there is a niche for Mexicans to exploit in the US, true, but that's also true for any group on earth. It just so happens that Mexican niche-fillers are in ready-supply and politically powerful people benefit.
What I meant about the 300 million person market is that our economy would not collapse without these added people, so we don't *need* immigrants as the title of that book Tyler Cowen mentions puts it. A market of 50 people might really need added individuals, but it's silly to say *our* economy does.
James:
Okay, fair enough, I see your point now. I think you're right at the bottom--our economy would work fine with no low-wage immigrants at all, though some things would cost more. I think that's not true at the high end (if you don't let Albert Einstein in, you can't reliably replace him with a homegrown model), but that's not the place where the immigration numbers get worrying anyway.
Speaking from a non-American perspective, I believe both the Bush administration's handling of it's foreign policy and economy, and it's rather odd attitude to immigration (scare off the brightest and invite mexico in) are both exceptionally wonderful things. Stagnant Europe gains by having America in freefall, and by attracting Asian immigrants who are scared off by America new "village mentality" terrorist hysteria. And Asia continues to rise... the American century is over.
I only wish the two-term presidential limit could be abolished.
Post a Comment