Cost of Illegal Immigration May Be Less Than Meets the Eye ( NY Times)

[luckydevil]

Just another myth-busting piece

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html

CALIFORNIA may seem the best place to study the impact of illegal immigration on the prospects of American workers. Hordes of immigrants rushed into the state in the last 25 years, competing for jobs with the least educated among the native population. The wages of high school dropouts in California fell 17 percent from 1980 to 2004.

But before concluding that immigrants are undercutting the wages of the least fortunate Americans, perhaps one should consider Ohio. Unlike California, Ohio remains mostly free of illegal immigrants. And what happened to the wages of Ohio's high school dropouts from 1980 to 2004? They fell 31 percent.

As Congress debates an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, several economists and news media pundits have sounded the alarm, contending that illegal immigrants are causing harm to Americans in the competition for jobs.

Yet 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.

read the rest by clinking on the link

[Extreme]

in lieu of starting another fight :censored: we all know my views on this, i said too much already

[Teller]

Yea! More support for breaking the law! Whoohoo! More support in America for non-Americans! Congress should work harder to support illegal immigrants too, rather than the American citizens who elect them. Oh, wait! They already are! Great!

Note to illegal immigrants: Your switch from displaying Mexican flags at your "rallies" to American flags, hasn't fooled anyone with a head on their shoulders. It was a nice PR effort, but you need to try something else...like going home.

But anyway, since our laws are meaningless, I'm off to "improve my situation." I'll log back on after I knock over the local bank.

[Fergasun]

This has already been de-bunked by conservative think-tank.

Basically this article DOESN'T ADJUST FOR COST OF LIVING, WHERE OHIO HAS A MUCH LOWER COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO CALIFORNIA!

Yes, that is me yelling... but you have to yell real loud to get through the crap.

Basically after adjusting for cost of living, there is evidence illegal immigrants may have lowered the wages of High School dropouts.

What about the cost of living difference between California and Ohio? Don’t they tell you in Econ 101 and in Journalism 101 to always adjust for the cost of living? According to the data gathered by the nonprofit organization ACCRA, which measures cost of living so corporations can fairly adjust the salaries of employees they relocate, California has the highest cost of living in the country with an index of 150.8 (where 100 is the national norm). Ohio is below average at 95.4. So, relative to the national average cost of living, high school dropouts in Ohio average $8.77 versus $5.78 for the equivalent in California. That means they are 52% better off in Ohio.

So, the Law of Supply and Demand hasn’t been repealed after all…

One obvious cause of this huge difference in the cost of living is that during the same 1980 to 2004 period, housing inflation in California was 315% versus 155% in Ohio, according to the Laboratory of the States.

Even failing to adjust for the striking disparities in the inflation rate between Ohio and California, one obvious differences is that high school dropouts used to be paid a lot more in Ohio, probably due to greater unionization. In contrast, Southern California was traditionally anti-union. The 1980 wage in Ohio was $12.13 versus $10.49 in California. Obviously, the decline in unionized heavy industry jobs hit rust belt Ohio harder than growing California, which had fewer unionized heavy industry jobs to lose.

There is obviously more in the link...

[Winslowalrob]

Accra is the capital of Ghana too!

[Ancalagon the Black]

This has already been de-bunked by conservative think-tank.

Basically this article DOESN'T ADJUST FOR COST OF LIVING, WHERE OHIO HAS A MUCH LOWER COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO CALIFORNIA!

Yes, that is me yelling... but you have to yell real loud to get through the crap.

You can stop yelling. That was one of the worst pieces of “analysis” I have ever read. What qualifications do you need these days to be classified as a “think tank,” anyway? Mustn’t be many.

The article doesn’t adjust for the cost of living because cost of living doesn’t factor into percentage changes. The writers of the blog you link to obsess on the absolute numbers in a graphic, which don’t even appear in the article. The article clearly states that California dropout wages dropped by 17% and Ohio dropout wages dropped by 31%. Absolute wages do not enter into this analysis at all. The average wage in California could be $1000 per hour and have dropped by $170 per hour, and the average wage in Ohio could be $1 an hour and have dropped by only $0.31 per hour. It doesn’t make a lick of difference to the percentage change, which is what’s important when you consider how changes in the labor supply are affecting the market.

Not only that, but these goofballs have totally misinterpreted the “law of supply and demand,” which they gleefully refer to. No wonder they have such contempt for economists: they have absolutely no understanding of economics.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yea! More support for breaking the law! Whoohoo! More support in America for non-Americans! Congress should work harder to support illegal immigrants too, rather than the American citizens who elect them. Oh, wait! They already are! Great!

Note to illegal immigrants: Your switch from displaying Mexican flags at your "rallies" to American flags, hasn't fooled anyone with a head on their shoulders. It was a nice PR effort, but you need to try something else...like going home.

But anyway, since our laws are meaningless, I'm off to "improve my situation." I'll log back on after I knock over the local bank.

:applause: :applause: :notworthy :notworthy

[Ancalagon the Black]

Yea! More support for breaking the law!

I agree that we should not be supporting people who break the law. A question for you: if it were demonstrated that low-income immigrants make Americans better off, would you favor making the immigration laws less stringent?

[The 12th Commandment]

Those damn law breakers. While not illegal, dropping out of high school is a stupider thing to do than crossing the border illegally and it should be a misdemeanor too. I would wager we spend more on welfare, indigent health care and other entitlements for drop outs than we do illegals. They had an opportunity and blew it. Illegals are working their tale off for an opportunity.

If you want the law changed fine, but how hypocritical to make such a big deal about the law, when the law they break is equivalent to the unlawful importation of fireworks to a state where they are illegal. Anybody been to South of the Border?

Who would you rather hire (law aside) - a drop out or a man working to feed his family? Come on. :doh:

"Did you know that it is only a misdemeanor to cross our sovereign borders? A few brave souls in Congress are bucking the tide and attempting to make it a felony to do so. It is ridiculous that entering our country illegally is currently only a misdemeanor, especially when the dangers of terrorists crossing our borders, the terrible economic effects on our nation and the drugs flowing across our borders are taken into consideration."

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3312

[aREDSKIN]

The NY times?? I mean really, hasn't the NY times been regulated to the left wing agenda driven MO trash heap by now??

[Thiebear]

I'd agree:

Lets say Illegal Immigrants hospital/school/jail/crime was outweighed by Taxes/Sales.

Lets say each Illegal Immigrant brought 100$ a month.

Does that make it o.k.?

[The Sisko]

Yea! More support for breaking the law! Whoohoo! More support in America for non-Americans! Congress should work harder to support illegal immigrants too, rather than the American citizens who elect them. Oh, wait! They already are! Great!

Note to illegal immigrants: Your switch from displaying Mexican flags at your "rallies" to American flags, hasn't fooled anyone with a head on their shoulders. It was a nice PR effort, but you need to try something else...like going home.

But anyway, since our laws are meaningless, I'm off to "improve my situation." I'll log back on after I knock over the local bank.

Great diatribe. Now try to tell me you drive the speed limit everywhere you go. Of course, I suppose you also don't have a problem with an industry that supplies people who want to break the law with radar/laser detectors that allow them to do so. If your problem really is with people breaking the law, this sounds something like a double standard to me.

[Fergasun]

The article clearly states that California dropout wages dropped by 17% and Ohio dropout wages dropped by 31%. Absolute wages do not enter into this analysis at all. The average wage in California could be $1000 per hour and have dropped by $170 per hour, and the average wage in Ohio could be $1 an hour and have dropped by only $0.31 per hour.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In California the wages dropped down 17% to $830/month. In Ohio the wages drop down 31% to $690/month.

Cost of living is important because after everything is said and done $690/month could go further in Ohio than $830/month in California.... even after the wage losses.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In California the wages dropped down 17% to $830/month. In Ohio the wages drop down 31% to $690/month.

Cost of living is important because after everything is said and done $690/month could go further in Ohio than $830/month in California.... even after the wage losses.

What you are missing is that it doesn't matter how well off at any given point the two sets of wage earners are. If you are measuring the effect of a given phenomenon on wages, you measure it on percentage of wage change, not on absolute wages.

Let's say that California has twice the cost of living as Ohio, so someone making $1000 a month in California is as well off as someone making $500 a month in Ohio. Now, let's say that the average Californian makes $750 a month and the average Ohio laborer makes $500 a month (so the Ohio laborer is better off). Fast forward 10 years. The Californian wage drops by 10% and the Ohioan (?) wage drops by 20%. The Californian now makes $675 a month. The Ohioan makes $400 a month.

Now, the Ohioan is still better off absolutely (because his wage is equivalent to a $800/month Californian wage). However, his standard of living has definitely dropped more dramatically than the Californian's--he is 20% worse off than he was, whereas the Californian is only 10% worse off.

[Predicto]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In California the wages dropped down 17% to $830/month. In Ohio the wages drop down 31% to $690/month.

Cost of living is important because after everything is said and done $690/month could go further in Ohio than $830/month in California.... even after the wage losses.

But the point is the effect on relative wages created by immigration, not the average cost of living.

California - lots of immigrants, but didn't drop that much as a percentage

Ohio - fewer immigrants, dropped more as a percentage

It still may be cheaper to live in Ohio, but how does that reflect anything about the effect of illegal immigration on lower level wages.

[GSF]

I'd agree:

Lets say Illegal Immigrants hospital/school/jail/crime was outweighed by Taxes/Sales.

Lets say each Illegal Immigrant brought 100$ a month.

Does that make it o.k.?

A billion a month is pretty good money, but it's small potatos compared to the $300 billion+ they have already contributed to our social security.

[Larry]

Not only that, but these goofballs have totally misinterpreted the “law of supply and demand,” which they gleefully refer to. No wonder they have such contempt for economists: they have absolutely no understanding of economics.

OK, so let's discuss my application of "the law of supply and demand" to this question:

Please find me just one possible explanation that can even theoretically claim that increasing the supply of a good (labor) can have any effect other then lowering the price of that good.

Now, I'll buy that it's at least possible to claim (with 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) that illegal immigration might not hurt the economy as a whole. You could claim that lowering the cost of labor in some industries stimulates other industries, and so forth. I can also admit that it's possible that illegal immigration may result in a net gain to the government (that maybe the taxes withheld, and the economic stimulus provided by, illegals outweigh the gosts of providing government services to them).

But it's just flat-out impossible for you to convince me that increasing the number of workers (and cheaper workers, at that) raises wages. Any more than you could convince me that if Iraq doubled oil production tomorrow, oil prices would go up. (Without monopolistic pricing.)

[Larry]

Great diatribe. Now try to tell me you drive the speed limit everywhere you go. Of course, I suppose you also don't have a problem with an industry that supplies people who want to break the law with radar/laser detectors that allow them to do so. If your problem really is with people breaking the law, this sounds something like a double standard to me.

Um, if you want to accuse someone of having a double standard, it might be nice for you to actually find out if he is breaking the laws you accuse him of.

While I'd be willing to bet that there are people with radar detectors on their dashboard, complaining about illegals, (probably while actually hiring a few of them), when you accuse a particular individual of it, then you're not attacking an image, you're attacking a person.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Screw common sense! We need a big wall with guns on top.

[Larry]

Screw common sense! We need a big wall with guns on top.

And sharks with friggin laser beams!

[Midnight Judges]

Yea! More support for breaking the law! Whoohoo! More support in America for non-Americans! Congress should work harder to support illegal immigrants too, rather than the American citizens who elect them. Oh, wait! They already are! Great!

Note to illegal immigrants: Your switch from displaying Mexican flags at your "rallies" to American flags, hasn't fooled anyone with a head on their shoulders. It was a nice PR effort, but you need to try something else...like going home.

But anyway, since our laws are meaningless, I'm off to "improve my situation." I'll log back on after I knock over the local bank.

That's cute the way you equated getting a job to feed your family with armed robbery.

Nobody is for breaking the law, they are for making the law realistic.

Here in Virginia oral sex is against the law. That law doesn't get enforced either. That's because it's a stupid law-much like our pathetically unrealistic immigration system. Sometimes it's the lawmakers making a mockery out of the Government, not the people.

[The Sisko]

Actually Larry I have no way of knowing whether or not he obeys the speed limit. Furthermore, I would have no way of finding out whether he obeys or disobeys any law(s). However, I simply selected a misdemeanor that is almost universally committed in an effort to illustrate the fact that many folks have a pretty short memory when it comes to their own shortcomings. If he does in fact obey all the speed limits all the time, more power to him. However, I'd be willing to bet that he's just like the 99% of us that don't.

[JimboDaMan]

OK, so let's discuss my application of "the law of supply and demand" to this question:

Please find me just one possible explanation that can even theoretically claim that increasing the supply of a good (labor) can have any effect other then lowering the price of that good.

Now, I'll buy that it's at least possible to claim (with 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) that illegal immigration might not hurt the economy as a whole. You could claim that lowering the cost of labor in some industries stimulates other industries, and so forth. I can also admit that it's possible that illegal immigration may result in a net gain to the government (that maybe the taxes withheld, and the economic stimulus provided by, illegals outweigh the gosts of providing government services to them).

But it's just flat-out impossible for you to convince me that increasing the number of workers (and cheaper workers, at that) raises wages. Any more than you could convince me that if Iraq doubled oil production tomorrow, oil prices would go up. (Without monopolistic pricing.)

Lets try this:

The statistics quoted refer to HS dropouts, presumably not to immigrants. Esp not the illegal ones who wouldn't tend to participate in anybody's wage survey. As more immigrants flood the low end of the job market, the remaining dropouts either take higher-paying jobs or quit the job market altogether, and the average earnings of dropout workers actually rises. Rather than 5 dropouts working the car wash you have 3 immigrants and one dropout supervising them. Not saying this is the truth, or even desirable, but at they say, it could happen. Hey, you asked.

[Crazyhorse1]

I've been unable to come to firm conclusions about the cost/profit of illegal immigration because of complexities. On one hand, illegal immigration, after all expenses to the U.S., brings in a profit of about 10 billion per; on the other, lower wages bid down the cost of labor; then, again, food becomes cheaper and the standard of living goes up.

There are too many numbers to juggle here to be sure of what we believe to be true.

I will therefore limit myself to a few ad hominem remarks. Those of you who are against poor immigrants sneaking across the border to make a few bucks seem to me holier than thou racist punks; those of you who want to throw open our borders should probably be put in mental institutions; and those of you who want to compromise

have heads upon which I would like to sit while taking a snooze.

[Crazyhorse1]

I agree that we should not be supporting people who break the law. A question for you: if it were demonstrated that low-income immigrants make Americans better off, would you favor making the immigration laws less stringent?

How can Republicans now back away from people who break the law?