In my new VDARE.com column, I analyze a recent feature package in the New York Times centering on Damien Cave's article: Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North.
The essential concept that evades the mental grasp of Damien Cave and the NYT’s editors: convergence.
Mexico has indeed been—very slowly—becoming more like the U.S.
For example, Walmart, a firm that clawed its way out of the Ozarks by being ruthlessly efficient, now operates 1,773 stores in Mexico and Central America. Walmart bans even the normal American corporate etiquette of salesmen taking buyers out to lunch. So its stern morality is likely teaching Mexico’s traditional culture of corruption some much-needed lessons.
But, just as the temperature inside your house in July or January will eventually converge with the unpleasant temperature outside if you leave your doors open (unless you spend ever more on air conditioning or heating), decades of mass immigration from Mexico mean that America is also converging on Mexico: poorly-paid, underemployed, economically unequal, educationally unmotivated, and oligarchical.
Not surprisingly, the more America becomes like Mexico economically, the less attractive of a destination it is to Mexicans.
Another lesson to be learned from the theory of convergence: while you could, at vast expense, air condition a few feet of your porch by keeping your windows open, you can’t cool off the whole world.
The global population will hit seven billion next spring. The U.N. predicts ten billion by 2100. It forecasts that Mexico’s southern neighbor, Guatemala, will grow from five million in 1970 to 46 million in 89 years.
These billions of people are going to have to solve their own problems. We can’t do it for them by letting them into America.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
24 comments:
Steve, what is the actual data on what's happened to the number of illegal immigrants in the last three years or so, since the rise of Arizona-styled laws, the recession, and the flameout of amnesty?
I know the Census numbers came in at the high end, but you also have things like the unexpected and continuing decline in LAUSD enrollment. And a decline in LA County alone should have a national impact.
How they (eg Guatemala) can solve their problems when they are likely experiencing pretty substantial dysgenesis just like us, I have no idea. I would guess that they will experience gradual economic regress unless a fair amount of really useful new technologies hit the world market, or the prices of raw materials possessed by them continue to rise a lot.
Another reason why I have boundless contempt for economists.
Most of them are completely unaware of the laws of supply/demand and scarcity.They seem to think that the USA can soak up an infinity of low skilled third worlders with no ill-effects at all, no decline in wages, living standards,no, no, no.
They come out with bullsh*t you've never heard of such as 'lump of labor' to justify their madness.
Never mind the poverty, consider the violence.
We've all seen the severed head pctures from Mexico.We all know about the thousands of murders.We all know about the shittinees of everyday life in Guatemala and those pathetic little gangs (a 19th century European army would measure that rabble in one day), which murder bus drivers for $5 a pop plus tips.
If you were a 'respectable' Guatemalan or Mexican, would you really, seriously want to marry and bring up children in that milieu?
Perhaps this is a bigger and more powerful motivation to get the hell out, at any cost, and park yourself in a place that catually has a civil society.
In fact the whole Latin America is looking up to the States. Even when I was in Venezuela I was surprised about the local's knowledge and appreciation of the American culture. As long the image of American superiority exists, those people all over the Latin America would continue going for their American dreams.
One thing I need to point out is that as much as those Latinos admire and appreciate American culture, their English language skills are no match to their knowledge in the American culture. Maybe if America could focus on spreading English proficiency in Latin America, things could get better for the US itself.
The world population is continuing fast-growing even when the whole West/Russia/China is on stagnation. Compared to Europe, which suffers from the proximity to the Moslem world and Black Africa, the two rabbits holes with more potency and stupidity of their breeds to the European society, Americans are in a much better position for you only have to deal with the manipulable Catholic latinos.
This is such an excellent, informative article it's hard to bring anything to the table. One thing to say is that VDare's editing is bad. There is no need to "punch up" the phraseology of every other sentence and the hyperlinks are sometimes silly (like the one on air conditioning).
The convergence does seem to vindicate an abstruse academic principle of economics: that "there is a tendency in a capitalist economy toward an equalization of the rate of profit, or rate of return, on capital" (to quote a free-market fundamentalist). That means the giant sucking sound spoken of by the late Perot. Economic man's life is a race to the minimum, to the bottom. Free-market fundamentalism is merely a branch of egalitarianist ideology, which, for example, mixes gifted children with violent thugs in "public" schools. The idea behind that is either gifted kids will rise to the top and rule the thugs (but somehow such unrealistic social Darwinism would be democratic) or else gifted kids will have some sense beaten into them and become "normal" democratic citizens (this is the more common and realistic outcome). Observe how many bloviators opine that Americans pay "too little," e.g. for gasoline, or have it "too easy." These gasbags are anti-tariff, to put it mildly. They are for free trade - and, necessarily, for leveling.
Convergence is a good way to describe the situation in which an equilibrium is reached.
As the income gap between the two places decreases, the desire to go to a foreign country decreases. Eventually, the two places are about equal and inertia wins out.
Any kind of nationalist or nativist awakening in the USA, or even just the dropping of the welfare state or prosecution of those who hire illegals, and then exodus toward Mexico will begin en masse.
That would actually be best for Mexico, which needs its own people to address its own problems, and probably experiences a population boom as people reproduce in greater numbers to compensate for the missing labor.
Great piece.
"These gasbags are anti-tariff, to put it mildly. They are for free trade - and, necessarily, for leveling."
The main purpose of the colonization and deindustrialization of the Western World by third worlders is to bring about leveling. Every single globalization scenario I read Phyllis Schlafley warn of in the early 1990's has come to pass, and bringing the first world into parity with the developing world was the stated objective (UN white papers were her main reference source). That's why she and Eagle forum are no longer of any value to the republican party.
"Not surprisingly, the more America becomes like Mexico economically, the less attractive of a destination it is to Mexicans."
So much of California has suffered Mexification that it has fueled an exodus to places like Illinois and North Carolina for a large number of recent illegals who came to the US to work and improve their lot and not join MS 13. The extreme downward pressure on wages and crappy Mexified neighborhoods have many fleeing California shortly after arrival.
"If you were a 'respectable' Guatemalan or Mexican, would you really, seriously want to marry and bring up children in that milieu?"
Yes. Most of the 'respectables' have a quality of life, relatively speaking, far far higher than they ever could in the US. Few of you realize the pleasure obtained by Latin American elites in lording over the Indians. It's far better than being, at best, merely another middle class American. There's no pretending equality with that lot! Remember, it's not the 'respectable' ones that are coming here illegally, it the poor ones who the 'respectables' are happy to see gone. The supply of cheap labor is so vast, it doesn't affect servant wages at all.
I'll say one thing Mr Sailer. We should end the war on drugs. It is turning Mexico into a war zone.
I know people who have worked in US consulates in Mexico. They have told me that there's significant pressure to issue, in order to be able to process a large amount of visas in a day. There's pressure to issue H2A visas also, as long as the interviewee tells the truth about their past immigration history.
Ed McKeon's opinion regarding visas is not misrepresented in this article. He has told this to his employees several times.
yeah i think you overlooked the obvious reason: "the great recession". harder for border jumpers to get work in the US now, so less incentive to come. i noticed this effect around 2008 or so.
after 2000 there were more and more mexicans every year in states where there were no mexicans only 10 years earlier, and by 2007 there were SO MANY mexicans EVERYWHERE. yet when the crash began in 2008, they started to disappear. and they never came back in numbers.
not that i think "the great recession" is the right way to describe what's happening, but that's the phrase in common usage.
by the way, PEMEX lost 3 billion dollars in 2010. a net loss for the main economic driver of mexico. so mexico is not doing that great. as i've posted about several times, as the oil output of the existing large fields in mexico declines, their national government will collect less and less money from it's main source of tax revenue.
the employment situation in mexico might be helped though, if liberal politicians in the US continue to make it so tough to run manufacturing operations in the US that american companies continue to slowly migrate their factories down into mexico.
we probably need to do an entire article on how mexican freight trucks are now allowed to drive freely around the united states. this seems crazy, but NAFTA basically requires it. it was resisted for 15 years, but ray lahood finally made it happen.
this will naturally increase the flow of drugs and illegal aliens into the US, the only question is, to what degree. and of course, mexican freight trucks will now be crashing into americans and killing them, again, the only question, how much more frequently.
'"there is a tendency in a capitalist economy toward an equalization of the rate of profit, or rate of return, on capital" (to quote a free-market fundamentalist). That means the giant sucking sound spoken of by the late Perot. Economic man's life is a race to the minimum, to the bottom."'
Sure if you view the purpose of en enterprise as provifing an easy job at high wages.
I started a business and I believe the purpose of a business is to make me money and I do that by giving value to my customers. Businesses ruthlessly work to give more value to their ccustomers, and under competiton others do the same pushing wages, profits and waste down. the customers benefit.
I want my internet provider to make the smallest profit possible and to constantly cull its employment ranks for unneeded employees so as to give me more value for every dollar I have to spend.
employees who add value to their enterprises have a secure job - they are making their emolpyers money, Employers who squeeze more productivity out of the same resources add value to the world. It is only rent seekers who want protection
Excellent article. It seems to cover everything that I could think of, although it might seem a bit too pessimistic.
Steve, what is the actual data on what's happened to the number of illegal immigrants in the last three years or so, since the rise of Arizona-styled laws, the recession, and the flameout of amnesty?
I know the Census numbers came in at the high end, but you also have things like the unexpected and continuing decline in LAUSD enrollment. And a decline in LA County alone should have a national impact.
The bursting of the Hispanic Bubble started in 2007, which was the peak year. Since then, births to Hispanics, especially Mexicans, have been tanking. I suspect that the birth rate for Mexicans in the U.S. will fall down to replacement to match their cousins in Mexico, although the rate for Dominicans and Central Americans might remain high for quite some time.
There is a baby boom occurring among Dominicans, ironically, it would seem, because Mexicans are no longer crowding out everybody else for family-sponsored immigrant visas in the Second Preference, and the primary effect is a cascade of Dominicans who no longer have to wait. It is visible, for instance, in the birth stats of New York State, which is one of the few states to show no drop at all in births since the start of the recession.
As for immigration -- it is mathematically impossible to continue chain migration from a country with a birth rate of two children per woman to the same extent as when it was at seven children per woman. Back ten and twenty years ago, the average 20-year-old Mexican would have six siblings, most of whom would be willing to go mojado. The Mexican of tomorrow, by contrast, will have only one sibling who just might actually be gainfully employed and not interested in moving.
Someone might bring up Poland in Europe, which has produced a lot of emigrants, yet has a very low birth rate. Twenty to thirty years ago, Poland had one of the highest birth rates in Europe, about three children per woman. Same goes for South Korea, which is still producing emigrants, although not the same extent as in the 1980s.
This should be the stock rejoinder to enthusiasts for the current immigration situation:
In what measurable ways will the U.S. be better off by becoming more like Mexico?
If asked for specifics, the following would be a pretty good start:
1) GDP per capita
2) Political corruption
3) Criminality
4) Income inequality
5) Environmental protection
6) Educational attainment
7) Workplace safety
8) Consumer protection
9) National defense
I'm sure I'm missing others...
"solve their own problems"
utter madness
However, mother nature will likely step in with her harsh discipline and choose the winners and losers.
"However, mother nature will likely step in with her harsh discipline and choose the winners and losers."
As in, he who breeds in any circumstance wins?
Ed McKeon= The Green Shadow strikes again! This needs to become a comic book hero. The Kennebunkport Kompound is his lair! Hiberian machinations round every corner! EMK lives!
employees who add value to their enterprises have a secure job - they are making their emolpyers money, Employers who squeeze more productivity out of the same resources add value to the world. It is only rent seekers who want protection
And graduating to rent-seeker is the ambition of ever businessman, everywhere. Just sayin'.
Svigor
Anonymous said:
I started a business and I believe the purpose of a business is to make me money and I do that by giving value to my customers. Businesses ruthlessly work to give more value to their ccustomers, and under competiton others do the same pushing wages, profits and waste down. the customers benefit.
This is the capitalist conundrum: what is [perceived to be] good for the individual is harmful to the society. The mania to keep down costs and prices to maximize profits beggars the working class and leads to the replacement of wages by welfare, usury, etc. (not to mention the substitution of illegal immigrants for citizens).
I started a business and I believe the purpose of a business is to make me money and I do that by giving value to my customers. Businesses ruthlessly work to give more value to their ccustomers, and under competiton others do the same pushing wages, profits and waste down. the customers benefit.
Libertarians all believe this fairy tale. But if pushing wages down is the foundation of the American economy, how did America wind up with one of the best paid workforces in the world?
The reality is that America ended up with a highly paid workforce because its workers were more productive than those elsewhere, not because of the brilliance of its businessmen in ruthlessly driving down wages and profits.
>It is only rent seekers who want protection<
The trouble with this is that anyone making more than ten dollars per day is a "rent-seeker" in the context of the world economy. It is a race to the bottom. Rent-seeker is here used in its literal sense. Even antebellum slave-masters didn't begrudge their slaves a roof over their heads.
Although I don't believe the commenter is a businessperson - he sounds like an ideology-addled university student, in my opinion - still anyone in business who holds these scarcity-inspired views is doing poorly. It has to do with his apparent inability to understand that any employee who can't pay the rent will fire him.
>It has to do with his apparent inability to understand that any employee who can't pay the rent will fire him.<
I take the opportunity to clarify this semi-obscure sentence of mine, by expressing agreement with Dutch Boy, who said:
>The mania to [...] maximize profits beggars the working class and leads to the replacement of wages by welfare [etc.]<
Correct. Employers want slaves - people who do good work for free. That is the ultimate economic efficiency: only take. A form of it is privatizing profits while socializing costs.
But note that the uber-capitalists are worse than antebellum American slave-owners: they regard as parasitism even their employees' rational expectation of supporting themselves. That expectation is resented as "rent-seeking," using that term in its literal (not technical) meaning. Even the slave-masters didn't begrudge their slaves a roof over their heads; they understood that any responsible master had to provide this. Today's equivalent is a living wage for full-time employment.
In other words, the final expectation of uber-capitalists is that employees will make their livings OUTSIDE of work. Perhaps by stealing or hooking or selling drugs, but more likely by relying on charity. Realistically,* this evolves into a large welfare state. And if one can live only on the dole, why not quit working?
--
* Realistically no one wants to experience a violent revolution, with the mob placing heads on pikes and so forth.
Post a Comment